The fifth Test starts tomorrow. It is Australia’s last chance to salvage something better than a draw in this series.
Surely, the 3-0 score may flatter England a little bit at the moment, considering they got out of gaol in the third Test, and just got over the line in the first, but there is no denying that at key times, Australia have been comprehensively outplayed.
The final Test should be the perfect occasion for Australia to pick its XI that it ideally would want England to play against in Brisbane.
It’s a dead Test at The Oval. There’s no pressure on the Australians; the XI should treat this match as a chance to iron out a few Everest sized wrinkles and lay the foundations for the return series.
In my hypothetical and perfect world, I would drop Shane Watson for the fifth Test.
I’d drop Shane Watson not just because of his form, but because he is an injury risk. He limped off in the fourth Test, and despite his claims that he is fit again, he is clearly too much of a liability to warrant a spot in the team.
In regards to his form, Shane Watson persists in the team only because of the team management’s belief that he will win matches.
He has played seven Tests this year, and not even one innings by him with the bat or ball could be considered match-winning. This is namely due to the fact that Australia haven’t won any matches, but also because one single fifty in 2013 hardly screams, “I can win matches for you, pick me! PICK ME!”
His tight bowling, while effective, is not match-winning. The four other bowlers have demonstrated that they can take wickets without him.
He is an all-rounder who has all-round mediocre abilities at the moment.
It’s time to cut him loose before another summer begins where he is either injured and we all bafflingly crave for his ‘talents’ to come to the fore, or he plays and continually under-performs, as empirical and anecdotal evidence suggests he will.
Thanks for playing Shane.
Keep Usman Khawaja.
It’s a nothing Test, and only pride is on the line. Give the man a chance to play without the added burdens of saving a series. If he still can’t deliver, then let him go. But I back him to deliver this time, with far less pressure on his shoulders.
So, who would replace Watson and form the third layer of foundation? My suggestion: Simon Katich.
The man is in form, and Australia desperately need some added experience at the top. He could come in as an opener, with Rogers dropping down to three.
Smith and Khawaja can then build some time and confidence down at number five or six where they really belong at the moment. The added bonus of Katich is that he will fill the experience void left by Watson, and has a proven track record of success.
There is no space for Phil Hughes in this team. Talent and experience leave no space for him. It is patently clear that Hughes, Khawaja and Smith cannot be in the same team together. But I won’t close the door on his career just yet.
Realistically, we could expect no more than two seasons of usefulness by either Katich or Rogers, and that isn’t a problem. Hopefully by January 2015, Hughes or someone else in the Shield will be experienced enough and technically sound and ready to step up to Test cricket.
This is a perfectly reasonably expectation to have. Should Hughes be ready (at last), then Katich/Rogers can vacate their spot in the side.
Michael Clarke should remain in the team, of course. But friends, we need to stop expecting him to churn out centuries. Purple patches won’t last forever.
There’s no need for an all-rounder in the side. Australia rarely wins with an all-rounder in the team (see 2013 results as evidence!). Six batsmen, a keeper and four bowlers is the right combination.
Brad Haddin should remain the keeper for now. Matthew Wade is just not up to Test match scratch. I would see how Tim Paine goes in the Shield before the first Test.
Ryan Harris must play the fifth Test and then be rested from any ODI commitments between now and the first Test in Brisbane. Six Shield games are being played before the Brisbane Test. Harris should play three of them to stay Test-match fit.
Nathan Lyon remains as the lone spinner in the side. He will be very useful in Brisbane and has the added advantage of being able to take more than two wickets (see Ashton Agar).
Peter Siddle, James Pattinson (when he gets fit), Mitchell Starc and Jackson Bird should be involved in a healthy competition for the final two spots. This is one of the rare shining moments for the Australian team, the rich stocks of capable fast bowlers.
This XI, I think has a healthy mixture of experience, youngsters and good bowlers, and can reinvent itself as a transition team by letting players like Hughes sort himself out in the Shield and permanently casting away unfulfilled potential that is Watson.
This XI won’t win every match, but it would be competitive and can hang on for just a few years so that there is a proper base to evenly introduce talent and regenerate a production line again.
kevin martin
Guest
176 runs for a batsman you didn't want in the team, ouch!!!
colvinc
Guest
Nick, Interested in your thoughts on how the Wallabies will go against the All Blacks on Saturday night.
steve
Guest
this article is really awkward now...a heroic innings last night!
WQ
Guest
How's all that going for you today boys????
HandsOffBlack7
Guest
HEADLINE - Watson should be dropped for the fifth Test ...Nek Minnit
mark
Guest
Nick- any comments given what happened overnight?
compo
Guest
how embarassing for us Watson -haters. he’s on 150+ and going great guns. maybe he’s on a promise as his missus is there to watch him? (for the first time this series ?) or was it the knock to the head from Broad, did it scramble his brain and now he thinks he’s real batsman … and performing like one ?? anyway good to see, maybe we need his blokey experience as he shows S.Smith how “us blondes do it” … - eating humble pie as i write….munch munch -
Me too
Guest
Thank god we didn't drop him. Remains clearly our second best batsman and a decent bowler to boot.
Samuel Gates
Roar Pro
Gosh. I agree with so much of this article. You can't be a test batsman, play 40 something tests, and have only 2 centuries next to your name. Hardly a match winner. Katich should never have been dropped. That was a very silly move by selectors. Hopefully Nick Maddinson can knuckle down over the next few seasons and step into the side.
Blade Pakkiri
Guest
Do you think that Bird is better than Starc? I'm truly interested to know your thoughts. Because from whatever I saw of Bird in the 4th test, he never threatened to take wickets and was actually quite profligate in his bowling. Starc has been accused of releasing the pressure valve all too often. But Bird was no better, in fact he was worse cause he wasn't threatening either. For the record I'm Indian and haven't seen Bird play much. So I might be wrong. I believe that Starc is better than Bird. And it's a pity that he doesn't get an extended run. Look at this record: Played Chennai, Dropped Hyderabad, Played Mohali, Dropped Delhi, Played Birmingham, Dropped Lords, Played Manchester, Dropped Durham, Played Oval. I really think this is very unfair to Starc. Either give him an extended run or drop him completely and ask him to work on his shortcomings.
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
I think dropping Watson completely is a big call but I find what Australia have done in shuffling him back to 3 is absurd however. I thought he had a very decent test at no6 and I don't see him as the long term answer at no3 either. I think Australia had a far better and more settled order last time around. Watson has decent with the ball tying down one end certainly in terms of economy and maidens. Sticking him back up the order increases the strain on an already fragile body. Give the lad a break.
caughtinslips
Guest
good call
Tim
Guest
I agree - pick your best 6 batsmen (irrespective of age), best 4 bowlers and best keeper (not keeper- batsman). Instead this series we have played 5 batsmen (7 different players) , 1 all rounder, and a keeper-batsman . Problem is that 5 out of the 7 batsmen are averaging 30 or less this series, as is the all-rounder and the keeper-batsman. You won't convince the selectors to replace the all-rounder when the specialist batsmen are worse (and we have injury prone bowlers). It seems obvious that they need to pick different batsmen - but they are rotating the same failed cattle in the tour group - England cleverly neutralised our policy of picking too many left handers who can't play spin by preparing spinning wickets for Swann - so Cowan, Hughes and Khawaja all look likely to fail once again.
Dan Ced
Guest
Watto top scored for us in the tour match, while everybody else failed. It's as simple as that I fear.
Tim
Guest
True enough for picking specialist bowlers Nick - I would have stuck with Khawaja and Bird. I do agree with playing Katich by the way, but probably not for a dead rubber - he should have played in the third test for mine. Like most of us, at some stage my frustration with the continual failures of the top 6 made me think we might as well pick a bowler who can bat - he can't do any worse - but that is just momentary and I would have seen the flaws with that approach in practice. But in fairness to the selectors, it just seems that Khawaja has his confidence shot at the moment - and that is not surprising, because he wasn't really in good form in the pre-test tour games - he then failed 5 out of 6 times in the tests and then, instead of rebuilding his confidence, failed against the weaker English Lions attack. Hughes scratched around for an ugly 30 in that tour game - basically the same score as Faulkner (who was not out) - so I think that in frustration with the continued poor showings from the 3 left handed batting specialists (including Cowan), they decided to try someone new (also a right hander so less at risk against Swann hopefully) rather than put Hughes back in yet again. Unfortunately Bird is the domino effect and didn't deserve to be dropped.
Nick
Roar Guru
You should never pick a bowler based on who will hit more runs. you pick who will get more wickets. And this pick of Agar is not a miracle pick, and nor should Boof be praised for it. If he thought Agar was going to get 98 and star with the batting, why would Boof have him come in at 11? A genius move would have been selecting Agar at 6,7 or 8...and not as the replacement spinner as he so obviously was.
Steven McBain
Roar Guru
It's actually quite difficult on the timings unless you're based in Oz - it is of course an Aussie website! I've just submitted an article here at 10.30am Singapore time so 12.30 East Coast time but I'm pretty sure it will not be published until tomorrow. Seems that unless it is on the doorstep first thing East Coast morning it gets held up by a day and I don't think anything submitted on a Saturday or Sunday will get published until Monday although I could be wrong on that, only been submitting for a week or so now.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
I agree with the overall selection strategy for your team, especially solidifying the top 3 with seasoned experience. I'd like the to see the Australian selectors following a similar path going forward but I'm not really confident.
Red Kev
Guest
This is the crux of the issue "...the selectors believe that at the moment we need a fifth bowler..." The selectors are wrong.
Tim
Guest
Nick, I'm not advocating 2 all-rounders (or even one), just saying that Boof has previously said the selectors want a 5th bowler. So if you want to replace Watson, someone else needs to be the fifth bowling option (and Clarke has shown no faith in Smith so he is not the option). I'm not defending Boof (go for your life at sledging him), but in fairness: - Agar did nearly win us the first test (our failure was with the bat not ball so Lyon would not have done better). Only a handful of runs between being a genius move or a failure. - Watson wasn't a total failure at the top of the order - he and Rogers had an average opening partnership of 49 which is much better than the poms and still slightly better than Warner/Rogers - Starc vs Bird - maybe that selection did cost us the first test, but really we lost for two reasons - Ian Bells' second inning century and our poor batting. In the fourth test, Bird was unable to stop Bell from repeating his match winning 2nd innings century, and again our batting fell short. If you were choosing between Bird and Starc to bolster the batting, who would you pick? Unfortunately Starc failed twice in the first test with the bat, but it was reasonable to expect him to contribute more than Bird with the bat. Maybe if Starc has played the fourth test, we would have gotten the runs... Boof is not my hero, but Arthur was going downhiil - did you read his comments yesterday where he said that was managing team culture by giving everyone a "booklet" on team standards? At least there are no poor "team culture " or in-fighting excuses this series - just poor form....