The buzz around the one-day series against England that was as meaningful as an “I love you” on The Bachelor was inevitably about the performances of Mitchell Johnson and George Bailey.
They were the stars of the series, and aside from Test skipper Michael Clarke and former vice-captain Shane Watson, the only two who put their hand up for Test selection.
The two bowled spells and scored runs that were noticeable, not just because the numbers were good, but because the method was very ‘Test-like.’
There had to be a counter-shove from punters and pundits, and there was. The line it took was that ODIs can’t be used as reliable evidence for Test selection.
Everyone takes it as read that Twenty20 cricket is the instant coffee of cricket – it’s a very nice drink, but it ain’t coffee.
People have dismissed Twenty20 as a barometer for the aptitude of a cricketer to perform at Test level.
But if a T20 is a roided up, freakily shredded version of cricket (with compromised potency), where does that leave one-day international cricket and the armchair selector’s ability to judge the cricketers that play it?
In terms of the type of cricket that’s played, ODIs and Twenty20s are not in any way related. They’re simply not in the same postcode.
Twenty20 is by its very nature a game that disallows players the opportunity to build an innings of substance, instead demanding that you hit out or get out from ball one.
Should the first few batsmen fall on their blade, the result is inevitable: a spectacular failure.
The ability to fight, rebuild and strike back is as present in T20 cricket as coverage of the annual City-Country clash in Madagascar, or Adelaide for that matter.
ODIs are a different kettle of fish. Good innings, spells and cricket shots are rewarded, as are good cricketers.
Bowlers have the opportunity to work themselves into a spell with the luxury of ten overs. Batsman are allowed time and deliveries to build an innings, meaning good Test players often have very good records at one-day level.
Jacques Kallis, Hashim Amla and Rahul Dravid have all been written off as 50-over performers but have remarkable records belying their sluggish scoring rate in the five-day game.
The idea that one-dayers are somehow ‘hit and giggle’ akin to T20s is hyperbole, and dangerous hyperbole as it demeans what is a real contest of cricketing skill.
50 overs provide the platform for a genuine cricketing contest, and the best cricketers will flourish in this environment.
The argument from those that argue against ODIs as indicators of cricketing aptitude pretty much revolves round the length principle; the more days a game goes for the likelier it is ‘Test players’ will revel.
The Sheffield Shield is therefore the only way Australia has, aside from ‘A’ tours, to tell whether someone has the ability to succeed at Test level.
This is an absurdity.
Phil Hughes and Usman Khawaja have shown tremendous form at Shield level for quite some time but have never quite measured up when the international jump is made.
They have time on their side, and in my view would profit from extended stints in the ODI game to gain exposure to different conditions and higher quality bowling.
It has been a staple of Australian cricket that Test players ‘graduate’ through the one-day team to earn a spot in the five-day game.
Adam Gilchrist did it. Mike Hussey did it. Damien Martyn earned two recalls that one can remember through his performances in the pyjamas.
It was a theory that worked; get people exposure to the best players from other nations and in different conditions and profit when you eventually introduce them into Test cricket.
Because of Australia’s slim pickings, the graduate program of the Australian Test side had its budget slashed, and we’ve seen the rise of elevating people from Shield to the Australian creams.
No prolonged spell at international level has meant those players move into the game without enough experience against the best, so our once mighty Test team suffers.
The reintroduction of the one-day graduate program seems a very reasonable idea, and it’s time to see how our most consistent players in that format, with George Bailey the first in line at the moment, go in the Test side.
It’s not about the number of days, it’s about the cricket played.
ODIs are a real cricketing contest, not a slug off. Proper cricketers perform well in the format.
One shouldn’t be shy or embarrassed about using that format of the game, along with Shield, as a barometer for who will do well at international level.
Follow Paddy on Twitter @PatrickEffeney
Englishman
Guest
Mitchell Johnson - one of the great conundrums. On his day, he's unplayable. He just doesn't get that many days. I wonder if your selectors will pick him, based on his admittedly decent one-day showing. And, if they do, I wonder how he will fare when (if) he has to bowl 22+ overs, rather than 10, plus field for a day and a half. Of course, I'm assuming we'll bat more like 2011/12 than 2103, which is by no means assured.
Hookin' YT
Guest
Mitch can't swing a hoop down Hay street. Batsman OK from ODI but no for B grade bowlers?
JimmyB
Guest
I don't think Bailey has even played a test match, so I'm not sure how he's crap at test cricket.
Gaz
Guest
Great points Patrick and have agreed with this theory for a long time. Since back when Mark Waugh played two years of ODI before his Test debut. Blewett came in on the back of strong Aussie A od games in the quad home series in 1994/95. There are plenty of others and if you're playing international players on overseas wickets under more pressure it surely has to count. It's not always going to come up roses but you'd be silly not to consider. That's why I'd like to see guys like Shaun Marsh (injuries permitting), Callum Ferguson and Tim paine given a look at as they have done well on other international occasions and formats.
Praveen
Guest
Fair points James, bailey averaged 18 in shield last year, that's what you are referring to
Praveen
Guest
Shield has to be the benchmark for picking the test side and I agree with pope on his comments
Patrick Effeney
Editor
Unless he starts to swing the ball half a foot I'll take the no deal on this one...
Patrick Effeney
Editor
"Innings-building temperament". There's a buzz word we need to tattoo on the inside of all our young players' eyelids... Good to have you, and the great man AB, onside Brett!
Patrick Effeney
Editor
Amla made his Test debut in 2004 and his one-day debut in 2008. There's a reason for this. There was always a debate about whether South Africa could accommodate both Kallis or Amla in the team, which has proved to be an absurdity. No one doubts it now, but they did, at one point. As for the Huss, he cemented his spot in the Test team... with his one day performances. You said it yourself: he sealed the deal with those runs. Doesn't that resonate with what I was saying? And of course both Gilly and Martyn were good at FC level, but one-dayers provided the opportunity to prove themselves on the international stage. Michael's brother David on the other hand, even with his amount of FC runs, never got a shot in the Test team. Was it because he didn't score enough at FC level? Or did he not impress when given international exposure? Maybe it's a chicken and an egg, but both formats influence, and should influence, selectors.
Patrick Effeney
Editor
Oversight on my part. Of course he has to be there!
Brett McKay
Expert
Paddy, I'm with Alan Border on this, who's of the opinion that the state of Australian batting as it is currently, we nearly have to look closely at international runs made in ANY format. Now, I think T20I runs will naturally have an asterix next to them anyway, but qulity ODI runs now with two new balls certainly can't be ignored. I'd be picking Bailey tomorrow without any issue, I think he's showng precisely the type of innings-building temperment the middle order needs. If he has a good series in India, all the better. Fly him to Brisbane...
James
Guest
yeah courtesy of being awesome and then shite most of the time.
Hookin' YT
Guest
Based on this logic you should open the bowling with Clint McKay. England will go with Stokes!! Nurse! Nurse! The pain is back and the Morphine canister is empty!
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Johnson has pretty good test stats.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
Failure's a harsh term. Bevan had several good days out at test level. Bracken was always going to up against as he was a relative trundler, albeit very skilful. Certainly when he was in his prime no vacancies popped up. Lots more competition back then. Dunno about Bailey. He is a great competitor but is vulnerable to sharp pace. More vulnerable than Hughes and Khawaja. And McKay's hatrick was high quality against top bats. Most orthodox. Too much competition for him at test level but he is a very smart bowler and would do reasonably well I think.
matt h
Guest
Um, Ryan Harris our best bowler?
Ray
Guest
James - what are you on about? Bailey's test nubers do not exist -he's never played in a test match. Not to mention his first class stats aren't terrible. They'ernot as good as we'd all like but they're certainly not terrible
Nick
Roar Guru
Patrick, I cannot disagree more with your arguments. Mike Hussey did not 'graduate' from ODI's to Test cricket. A FC average of over 50, plus 11000 FC runs got him into the test team. His ODI performances just sealed the deal. Damien Martyn, Adam Gilchrist...both good at FC level. All test cricketers make it into the test team not because of ODI form, but because of FC form. Having useful ODI form is helpful, but not what the selectors will pick you on. In what world has Hashim Amla ever being accused on batting sluggishly? The answer is no world. Amla is just the classic, Bradman style cricketer. Takes few risks, times the ball well, looks for singles, and chooses not to slog for the sixes. He is remarkably similar in composure to Michael Hussey, except Amla has a more pure technique.
James
Guest
absolutely odis can be a barometer. if mitchell johnson or george bailey had never played a test match or a shield game it would be possible to say that odis are a test barometer. but we have seen them play tests and shield games and they are terrible. not terrible in the same way that clarke is not but terrible when we compare what coulda and shoulda happened and what they actually deliver in the real world. johnson can be great but 7/10 he is really bad, 2/10 he is only bad and only 1/10 he is incredibley awesome fantastical. bailey has terrible shield numbers too. johnson and bailey have always had good odi numbers and terrible test numbers. its what they do, leave them where they are. johnson doesnt have the mental skills to deal with bowling more than 10 overs and bailey, who i dont really know enough about, just seems to not be great at tests in any way like he is in odis. i love arnie and stallone, they know they are not actors but are awesome action stars. johnson and bailey are great odis but not test players. odis can be a barometer but when you have lots of other barometers that all say no, then we kinda should ignore the odi barometer.
Patrick Effeney
Editor
That seems like a good team to me too kuzzi, depending on the fitness and match practice of Pattinson.