Australia must stick with Alex Doolan instead of instigating yet another shuffle of the Test batting line-up.
Doolan was handed the mightiest of challenges a debutant could face – countering the world’s most-vaunted pace attack in their own backyard.
He may have only produced 186 runs at 31 over the three-Test series in South Africa. But given the degree of difficulty he encountered, such a return is equivalent to an average of 40 in a home series against the comparatively benign pace attacks of India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan or the West Indies.
Had he debuted next summer instead and accumulated say, 320 runs at 40 in the four-Test series against India, would there be so many calls for him to be dropped? It seems very unlikely.
Australia are in dire need of a sturdy first drop. They require a circumspect number three, capable of halting the fielding side’s momentum after an early wicket.
The Aussies have an array of stroke players in their top seven in David Warner, Michael Clarke, Steven Smith, Shane Watson and Brad Haddin. The best fit at first drop is a grinding, patient batsman in the mould of Chris Rogers.
The veteran opener’s role in the side has been pivotal in Australia’s resurgence. His steadying influence allows others, not least Warner, to unleash their attacking games with greater confidence.
Doolan showed enough in South Africa to suggest he has the capacity to perform a similar role now and perhaps for many years once Rogers retires.
Granted, he looked scratchy in three of his six innings. But not scratchy in the sense that he appeared liable to be dismissed at any moment. Rather, that he was not hitting the ball cleanly and battled to pierce the field or get off strike.
It is no great surprise a batsman playing in his first Test series would at times struggle to score freely against the likes of Dale Steyn and Vernon Philander on decks which did not foster strokeplay.
Cricket fans can be a fickle bunch. For years many Aussie supporters have bemoaned the fact the side’s batsmen were not willing to scrap for runs early in their innings and instead tried to bully the bowlers from the get-go.
Yet, here we had a new batsman prepared to shelve his ego to try to eke out runs with as little risk as possible and he was panned for batting too slowly. Not to mention the fact Doolan’s batting partners were often scoring at a brisk rate, meaning there was no rush for him to up the ante.
In a perfect world, Doolan would have moved the run rate along at a quicker pace while remaining just as solid. In a perfect world he would be Hashim Amla or Ricky Ponting 2.0.
But after the number of first drops Australia have churned through in the past 18 months, maybe fans should stop seeking a ‘perfect’ fit and be happy with an adequate one.
Watson, Clarke, Warner, Phil Hughes, Usman Khawaja and Ed Cowan have all been trialled in that position since Ponting retired. Why ditch the seventh batsman to occupy that position simply because he did not immediately dominate the world’s leading pace unit in their home conditions?
Considering the talent and aggression within Australia’s top seven, Doolan’s main role should be crease occupation. Get the shine off the ball, help to prevent collapses and set a platform for the likes of Clarke, Smith and Watson to exploit.
He had reasonable success in doing just that against South Africa. The Proteas’ are known for being lethal with the new ball.
The main challenge when batting against them is to survive the opening 25 overs with as few wickets down as possible. South Africa’s lack of a quality spinner means their attack often becomes significantly less potent after this period.
Over Doolan’s six innings in the series, he spent an average of 100 minutes at the crease.
Only once did he bat for less than an hour. On that occasion, in the first dig at Port Elizabeth, he was at the crease for 29 minutes before receiving a very good delivery from sharp left-armer Wayne Parnell.
The one obvious issue with Doolan’s efforts was of the five times he batted for more than an hour, only once did he go on to make an influential score – his 89 in the first Test.
Failing to capitalise on such good work is something for which he has been criticized at Shield level. Hopefully he can fix this problem and begin to exploit his capacity for weathering the storm early in his innings.
If he can’t then he should be dropped. But Doolan needs to be given time.
Clearly some people disagree with me, but I felt the Australian batting looked more stable thanks to Doolan’s presence.
He could prove to be just what Australia need at first drop.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
That is a weird comment. "Marsh would be the ideal number 3 if he didn't get out within his first few balls so often". I think Glenn McGrath would have also been an ideal number 3 if he was able to bat for long periods of time and score lots of runs and do it consistently... :-)
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The way Smith is playing very well at #3 for NSW and has settled well into the test side for Australia, if the spot at #3 opens up it may well not be unreasonable to consider Smith to bat at #3 and bring in someone like Lynn at #5/6. It's hard to believe I'm suggesting that, but Smith has quickly turned into someone you consider a very solid, reliable batsman and he's batting at #3 for NSW and doing it pretty well. So maybe it would be a reasonably option, especially if he has another year or two to keep maturing into the side.
Deep Thinker
Guest
Good question. Batting resources are very thin right now. I think players should be selected on the basis of performance, and not on 'touchy feely' stuff like 'technically correct', 'good temperament' or 'being in a good space'. There are only 3 players I'd consider. 1) David Hussey (who they won't pick because they want to 'build for the future') - good solid first class season, but no 100s, career first class average is 52. Offers handy offspin. Short term option. 2) Phil Hughes - who has not been handled well at all and may not quite be up to it. He needs to be kept in one position instead of batting in different positions all the time. Good season, solid career FC average of 45. 3) Chris Lynn - good season, solid career FC average of 44.50. If I had it my way, I'd pick Hussey as a stop gap until someone actually deserves to be selected. The main reason is that it sends a message to shield cricketers that consistent performance counts if you want to play for Australia. I think he still has something to offer. But Steve Smith would be my number 3. Lynn and Hughes are line ball selections. There are some guys averaging in the low 40s. In my opinion, they should need to lift their career average if they want to be selected.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Who would you pick instead?
Deep Thinker
Guest
For goodness sake, he is a 28 year old with only 6 hundreds and an average of only 37. He is averaging only 35 this season. He is out of form, and his career record is shoddy. He doesn't bowl. He is not a youngster - far too old to be a development project. Sorry Ronan, but the whole 'But South Africa are really good' excuse doesn't wash with me. Australia are going nowhere by picking these nothing batsmen.
Bearfax
Guest
Point taken. And actually I basically agree with you. I just like being contrary. I've said all along that he deserves his chance. I thought others deserved it more, but he is in the mix and could come good. But the betting market has him at far poorer odds that some of the others. But he's far more likely than Marsh, Bailey, Quiney etc, though my thoughts on Cowan have been modified some this Shield season. Has played some pretty decent knocks...I think his time in the Oz team had improved his self belief..
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
I never suggested Doolan would come close to what Hussey achieved. My point is that we will have to wait and see whether he flops at Test level or if he can bely his mediocre FC record and raise his game to a new level in Tests like Hussey did.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Shield had over 1700 for Day 1 which is pretty good going for our first class match, even if it is the final.
tomjas
Guest
And that is literally the only thing saving Doolan There is no way in the wide world that he is one of the 6 best batsmen in Oz but when it comes to no. 3, they are either too old or need another season
Bearfax
Guest
I appreciate where you are going with this Ronan but I guess the point is that Hussey had scored big both here and overseas. Sure his Shield average at that stage may have been between 40-41, but at least he was up to that level. Doolan is only 37 average no matter which way you look at it. if anything it shows that Hussey was ideal for overseas tours, especially to England where he scored big time. A far better batsman than Doolan and I doubt Doolan will come close to what Hussey achieved. But there are always what ifs I guess. Maybe Marsh might become a 50+ batsman. Maybe Quiney may become Australia's premier batsman. Doolans chances I believe are better than that,but I think there are half a dozen young blades more likely to achieve test stardom I would suggest ahead of this competent, but borderline test player
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Cheers Ed I'll give it a read
Lolly
Guest
I saw Lynn play against England at the WACA in the tour match, Fair enough it was a flat deck but gee, he played spin and seam equally well. Looked compact, combative and smart in terms of shot selection, very much like he knows his own game already which is great to see in a young player. Very impressive.
Arto
Guest
@ Ronan O'Connell: It maybe too early to make a definitive call on Doolan, but so far he hasn't shown anything better than Cowan. I didn't think Cowan deserved to be dropped on form (maybe he was dropped for other reasons?). So for my mind, Doolan doesn't deserve his place in the team any more than Cowan, or Khawaja for that matter. Let's just hope the selectors have learnt the folly of their ways in how they treated those 2 (& Hughes) - although I doubt it judging by the evidence of what has happened to Hughes this past summer!!
Arto
Guest
@ Ronan O'Connell: You're right it's not his fault that his natural game didn't fit the situation (in our collective armchair view!) in that 3rd Test 2nd Innings. However, I'm suggesting his natural game isn't any better than some of the others who have had a go since Ponting and we shouldn't necessary expect much from him.
Arto
Guest
@ Ronan O'Connell: Firstly, let me correct my stats above: In the 3rd Test, 1st Innings I wrote (from 1-65 off 13,3 to 2-138 off 31.3 – again 73 runs off 108 balls vs 65 off 81 of which Doolan made 20 off 83) - it should have said Doolan scored 20 off 66 balls (it was 83mins he batted for). So how can you say "Doolan scored no slower than Warner" when Warner contributed 48 of the remaining 53 runs of their partnership from the remaining 42 balls???!!! (Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-australia-2013-14/engine/match/648677.html?innings=1;view=fow) Warner slowed down in the next partnership with Michael Clarke - scoring 47 of the 79 runs in the partnership off a more sedate 70 balls!!! So, after having taken your advice I leave the ball in your court! :-)
Steele
Guest
As I said, you are basing everything on rankings and very little on what actually happened. Philander may have bowled well in the past, but he bowled pies to the Aussies, so his ranking is irrelevant. Steyn was good as usual yet was injured for a short period. Morkel was ordinary at best and they no longer had Kallis. Kallis's potential replacements showed a lack of depth in their bowling stocks and as I said, No Spinner. Which was important, since they slowed their pitches up after the first test shellacking. Why did they slow the pitches up? Because they knew we had a more threatening attack than theirs, which is funny when you think about their claims on having the best bowling unit. So in reality the Aussies faced a bowling unit in decline and on two occasions played on batsmen friendly pitches. Doolan was just average, which is consistent with his lengthy career. All our other batsmen performed above their averages further highlighting his mediocrity. We need to stop picking guys with ordinary first class records and expecting them to improve with higher honors. I'll wager anything the guy will be another Ed Cowen type flop!
Ruminate
Roar Guru
Good piece Ronan. I thought that he looked alright in SA given the magnitude of the occasion and quality of opposition for a debut, we've seen far worse! He was pretty consistent I thought, though does need to work on turning the starts into bigger scores. It's been mentioned that he could turn the stroke over a bit more, but I think that drying his runs up might well have been the strategy that SA employed for him, I seem to remember an impatient pull shot in the first test that might have led to this approach from SA. As for the strike rate, it seemed to me that he accelerated once well established, but in doing so could be forcing it a little and therefore leading to the low conversion rate of his starts. I don't subscribe to the 'moving the front foot more' theory that has been bandied about. They are many cricketers who don't take a big step forward and in fact with quality pace bowling planting it is a handicap, especially when there is a bit of swing and movement off the seam. Doolan did alright I believe and his addition to the team was an improvement, certainly enough to be retained through to the Indian series as I think that you mentioned. His work in the field close to the bat wasn't too shabby either!
Ed Lamb
Guest
Here's an article talking about the research I mentioned Ronan: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2010/11/luck-earnings-and-cricket.html
Gav
Guest
For mine he only needs a pass mark out of UAE. He has to contribute. But against India in Aust he would need to perform as we would expect of our no3..... with not only runs that lay a platform, but runs when the chips are down. If he doesn't come out of that series well, it will be time to look at other options for the Ashes.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Well Doolan hasn't played county like Hussey did for years. Hence it's far more accurate to judge them on the same criteria - their Shield careers. From the mid '90s to early-mid '00s the standard of bowling in county was absolute dross, far lower than Shield cricket. Hence, if you trawl back through the stats from that period you would often see a group of Aussie State players in the top 10-15 county runscorers, often averaging 65+ when they were not putting up close to the same numbers in the Shield.