The Big Show and other cricket solutions

I think it’s safe to say that after Day 1 of the second Test in Abu Dhabi, Australia’s plan is unfolding exactly as the brains trust would want it to.

With Pakistan sitting on 304/2 and Younis Khan and Azhar Ali both having achieved unbeaten centuries, there is no doubt that the strategy of confusing Pakistan with reverse psychology, as exemplified by the selection of Glenn Maxwell as number three, is in full flood.

Maybe that sounds a little churlish, but I have absolutely nothing against Maxwell, and applaud his selection.

AUSTRALIA VS PAKISTAN: FULL SCOREBOARD

I reject those who dismiss him as a skinnier Ian Harvey. After all, for many years the selectors have been searching for a class all-rounder, and if one all-rounder is good, then two must be better.

With Mitch Marsh and Glenn Maxwell in the same team, Australia might finally be getting back to its glory days, when Tony Dodemaide and Peter Sleep would put opponents to the sword side by side.

There’s been criticism of the Maxwell selection, with many pundits citing the fact that Maxwell is unproven as a specialist batsman. But then, so is Alex Doolan, and everyone seemed happy to give him a chance at number three.

And it’s not as if the selectors have a lot of options for that difficult number three spot. I mean obviously, if there was an exceedingly talented top-order batsman who already had three Test centuries to his credit, a first-class record the envy of all his peers and an average significantly higher than any other contender, obviously the solution would be easy.

You know, someone with a proven ability to score runs against high-quality international attacks, who is nearly 26 years old and called Phil Hughes. But where would the selectors find someone like that? Until that mythical player comes along, I guess we’ll have to keep experimenting.

And I for one think the Australian team should be encouraged to experiment more, not less. Remember it was a crazy experiment that led to the dazzling career of Shane Warne – nobody thought a chubby leggie with a bad haircut could ever have sex with Liz Hurley, but the gamble paid off.

Without experimental thinking, would we have had the Test career of Peter Taylor, Don Blackie or Shaun Young? Indeed not, and we would all be the poorer for it.

So I say to the selectors, whether Maxwell finishes this Test with 200 runs and 10 wickets, or – less probably – finishes this Test with not those things, don’t let it deter you from future zaniness when coming up with effective cricketing solutions.

For example, playing Maxwell at three is a good move, but why not push the envelope even further? Remember Jason Gillespie hitting 201? Why not unlock the dormant batting talent in other tailenders by pushing them up the list?

Is there any actual sound, logical reason why Peter Siddle isn’t opening the batting? What better man for taking the shine off the ball than ‘Sid’, so as to allow greater scope for the free-flowing stroke-making of the middle order of Maxwell, Johnson and Starc?

This of course means skilled batsmiths like Michael Clarke and Chris Rogers get to bat down the bottom. This can only be a good thing. Remember that in the first Test, after the eighth and ninth wickets fell, Australia struggled for extend the innings long enough to provide any chance at victory. Imagine if at that point the big guns had come in. Suddenly the match assumes a different complexion, does it not?

I guess the only reason you don’t want your frontline bowlers opening the batting is the fatigue factor. This can be ameliorated by opening the bowling with the frontline batsmen. There will be those who say that Rogers and David Warner are unproven with the new ball; but how on earth can a man prove himself unless he is given a chance?

Nobody knew Albert Jacka was good at bayoneting Turks until he got his big shot, and then he impressed all and sundry with his hitherto undemonstrated talent. And if you’re saying the Australian cricket team should not try to emulate the Anzac spirit then, sir, I take issue with you.

Naturally, I recognise that shuffling the batting order is only tinkering at the edges. Selection itself should be bolder, riskier, more Maxwellian. In every decision they make, selectors should ask themselves, “What would the Big Show do?”

This will mean not only thinking outside the box, but setting fire to the box, or using the box to imprison a dinosaur. Let us not be bound by convention. If we genuinely believe that coaxing Wayne Phillips out of retirement is the logical succession plan for Brad Haddin, why not go with that instinct?

If there is real reason to think that on low, slow wickets the best approach is to pick a team with eight spinners and no batsmen, Australia would be derelict in not pursuing that course. After all we’ve tried so many spinners since Warne’s retirement, but never all of them at once. Maybe that’s where we’ve been going wrong.

Australia’s fast bowlers have struggled for penetration on this tour, perhaps if they bowled slower? The slower bowlers have also struggled for penetration, suggesting they may not be bowling fast enough. Australia’s fielders haven’t been at their best, but this could be because they are handicapping themselves by using their hands to the almost total exclusion of their feet.

Any football player can tell you that refusing to use your feet is a recipe for disaster, yet our cricketers consider this a lesson not worth learning for some reason.

Of course the major issue confronting our Test team is the fragility of the batting, but this could be down to the fragility of the bats. Perhaps using a less fragile material in their manufacture would help. The entire team currently uses wooden bats, but is anything other than dusty tradition preventing them using formica or cotton?

The batsmen’s footwork against spinners has also been left wanting. This could be due to inadequate training practices, but might also be due to Pakistan cheating. Shouldn’t we at least try accusing the opposition of cheating before we give up?

Dean Jones advocates batsmen training against spin bowling without pads on. Admire the sentiment, Ledge, but let’s not go for half-measures. Let’s discard all extraneous equipment and get back to the purity of the game. After all, all this equipment is a relatively recent development.

Back in the 1920s, Test players would frequently play without pads, or gloves, or even shoes. Bill Ponsford was legendary for scoring mountains of runs without even using a bat; his skill in lashing bowlers to all corners of the ground with his bare hands was admired by all.

It was only the grim professionalism introduced to the game by Don Bradman that made gewgaws like pads and gloves and bats “necessary” – but some of the joy was lost.

And this Aussie team is lacking joy. Whether it’s because they have to use bats, or that they miss the gentle whimsical humour of Shane Watson around the place, there’s little joie de vivre among this group.

Let’s get that back too. Let’s encourage a laugh and a smile and wacky game-playing and habitual drunkenness and reckless personal risk-taking at all hours. Cricket is supposed to be fun, after all. Warner’s form since punching Joe Root has been exceptional, but nobody in the team has punched anyone recently, and their sad faces display the consequences.

What I’m saying is, let Glenn Maxwell be simply the exciting tip of an exhilarating iceberg. I implore team management, coaches and players to take traditional Australian insanity to the next level, and let’s be known throughout the cricketing world, as we were in Allan Border’s day, as “The Crazy Bastards Straight From Hell”.