In the seven years since Mitchell Johnson made his debut in Brisbane in November 2007, some 40 players have been handed a freshly-minted baggy green – more than double the number of the previous seven years.
Of course 2007 was the year that so many of Australia’s ‘golden generation’ began to retire, notably Justin Langer, Shane Warne, and Glenn McGrath.
However, many of those called up to replace these legends of Australian cricket are now floating around Shield cricket with little more than half a dozen caps to their name.
Players such as Rob Quiney, John Hastings, Andrew McDonald, and Michael Beer are all miles away from a recall and many would be hard pressed to even remember that names such as Beau Casson, Peter George, and Graham Manou were ever part of an Australian Test team.
As the Australian selectors tried to replicate the success of the preceding decade, there has been a constant overhaul of players. Many factors have been attributed with the decline of the Australian talent pool in recent years, but why consistent first-class performances seem not to weigh in on the selection process needs addressing.
It would have been a hard task for any team to go through such a turbulent period and emerge unscathed, but the methods of selection that were consistently used over the last seven years should not be beyond reproach.
The national selection panel (NSP) seems to come under fire after every Test series loss, but the problems appear to be endemic rather than a matter of the NSP getting it right during series wins and wrong during series losses. There has been a long-term problem that has seen batsmen selected on just about everything but consistent first-class performances.
Patrick Cummins is being touted as a potential starter at the Gabba, but the last of Cummins’ mere six first-class matches came over a year ago – it shows a serious problem with Test selection. It is absurd to think that someone who has played more T20 internationals than first-class matches would be fit to play Tests for Australia.
In the batting department, the basis for selection over the past few years seems to have been to pick players who have either a certain stylishness at the crease, or good form in shorter versions of the game. Neither of these factors have been a good predictor of success at Test level.
Conversely, players have been dropped or overlooked if their personality was not seen to gel with the team ethos, something that both Simon Katich and Brad Hodge could attest to. With the success of the selection methods being decidedly hit-and-miss, there is cause for batting spots to be determined by a more statistical approach.
Recent call-ups Shaun Marsh, George Bailey and Alex Doolan had never scored consistently enough in the Sheffield Shield, and had mediocre first-class averages to begin with. Marsh’s 5220 first-class runs came at an average of 36, Bailey’s 6365 runs at 37.4, and Doolan’s 3743 runs at 36.7 (as per Cricinfo), which goes a long way to explaining why these players failed to light up the international scene during their brief cameos in the baggy green.
Considering a Test average of at least 40 has long been seen as the benchmark for a good Test batsmen, it is baffling that the NSP have persistently selected players who do not even meet that grade in first-class cricket. There are certainly Australian players in the Sheffield Shield who are consistently racking up better numbers, and it is they who should be considered for selection.
Usman Khawaja, supposedly overlooked on several occasions because of his uninterested demeanour in the field, and Phil Hughes who was unlucky to be dropped in England last year and certainly unfortunate not to have been called up since, have 5392 runs at 40.3 and 8942 runs at 46.6 respectively in the first-class arena.
Also putting runs on the board in Shield cricket over the last few years have been the young Queensland pair Chris Lynn (1901 runs at 43.2) and Joe Burns (2658 runs at 40.3), and South Australian pair Tom Cooper (2927 runs at 41.2) and recently-returned Mark Cosgrove (9087 runs at 42.7).
With the upcoming Brisbane Test likely to have two or even three spots up for grabs in the top six, depending on whether Chris Rogers is deemed to have done enough to hold his spot, it is surprising that it is again Marsh, Doolan, and Callum Ferguson (5431 runs at 38.5) who appear favourites to take the places of the injured Michael Clarke and the under-performing Glenn Maxwell.
In the wake of a forgettable tour of the United Arab Emirates, the Test against India could provide a perfect opportunity to bring in new players.
Hopefully, those chosen will have been scoring runs in first-class cricket regularly over the past few years. There is still no better preparation for Test Cricket than first-class cricket and this should be recognised in the selection of the Australian Test team.
Muppet
Guest
If we were to chop and change at that rate the team would never settle.
boonboon
Roar Pro
You seem to have confused your article when you say the under performing Glenn Maxwell - with a first class average of 40.74 his is one of the better first class averages
Armchair Expert
Guest
You could argue that the success of Smith was a selection fluke, he was only selected for that Indian series as a back up and was never going to play any tests there until "homeworkgate".
Bearfax
Guest
I also agree with you Bush. As for the Mitch Marsh and Doolan issue, I would suggest they fit well into Bush's options. To me Doolan is a No 3 option. He was always a fringe player and was a risk, a gamble, from the start. Personally I would not have picked him because he was getting close to that optimum age 28-35 with only a mid 30s first class average. Was prepared to give him benefit of a doubt but I though it was a mistake and there were better options available. The Mitch Marsh issue is different. I place that in the No 1 category. But I also think he was pushed in a little too early. This kid has talent and I suspect he will be a future asset to a test side. But I think certain factors, including his name, media attention because of that, spreading to the public, and the push of certain influential parties, got him a spot before he was ready and ahead of more deserving players at this stage. I can see the selectors trying to prepare for Watson's eventual 'retirement', but I think players like Henriques and Faulkner were ahead of him at this stage in that capacity. I personally would have waited another year for Marsh because there is the chance, at his age, that he'll do a Hughes. However, I would not begrudge the kid his opportunity and now he is there the selectors need to give him as per No 1 options, a lengthy period to hone his test skills. I would not be having though both him and Watson in my team at the same time. Too risky as far as batting is concerned (the India experience)
Shortfineleg
Guest
The chance of an older established mid-30s or late-30s FC average player performing at high-40s when selected to play in the stratosphere of test cricket is marginal, at best. Ambitious punts based on whims should be for gamblers, not selectors. And I don't read BF as saying stats are everything. But they are fundamental. Stats are a record of performance. Performance should be the prime determinate.
Shortfineleg
Guest
Great post, Bush. I call the NSP selection theory Punt and Shunt.
Bearfax
Guest
Tom they have performed no worse than the 30 something batsmen that have been chosen. Difference is they are still developing and have much stronger first class averages. The probability is that they will get better. Its unlikely the 30 something players will improve much. And surely you've watched cricket enough to know that generally that's they way it goes. There are rare examples but mostly someone with a mid 30s average at 30, will stay a mid 30s average. Someone with a mid 40s average at 25 will more than likely improve on that by the time they are 30 and as they get more confidence and consistency their value as test players increases. Its apples and oranges Tom
Bearfax
Guest
Tom, if you were a selector would you be now selecting Rogers, Warner, Clarke, Smith, Watson, Haddin, Johnson, Harris. I would. That's what they are contending with....real hard.You may think about Haddin and Watson but they are still doing the job. So really all you have got left to think about are three positions. If I was a selector I would be picking O'Keefe, Behrendorf or Starc and Burns , Maxwell or Hughes. To select these 30 something batsmen shows in my opinion poor judgement, and I think the results justify that position. And I said that at the time each was selected not after the event. So how hard is it? Surely its a question of picking the best performed for the job. If you were totally dispassionate, you would probably select the same as I do. I think most would, if they avoided thinking of favourites. Johnson's selection I supported when he was selected because like Hughes he was performing well in first class cricket. Same with Harris. Select based on first class averages , considering age and recent form. But only select from that group and then choose the best for the role. Maxwell, Burns and Hughes have good 40+ averages. For me that's where you select from, not sub 40 average, 30 something second tier batsmen. You want to win dont you or do you prefer window dressing.
Scuba
Guest
Same number of dismissals per first class match as Haddin, lol.
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
Where is the first class statistic to explain why they haven't succeeded yet?
Bearfax
Guest
Oh come on Tom. Get it in perspective please. Hughes was 21, Clarke 23 and Khawaja 24 when they debuted. Hughes and Khawaja are still young and developing and even at their age much more successful batsmen than those others mentioned. They were selected because even at that young age they were showing strong performances and good averages for their age. These other guys are 29 and over and still cant get much beyond 35 in average. The only one showing any recent consistency is Cowan, and I acknowledged that. There's a big difference in quality and the records show that.
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
Dalgety gets it
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Your argument in those first two sentences there is just silliness Bearfax. You're so emotionally wedded to your point of view on FC stats being the be-all and end-all you'll try shoe horn whatever you can to comply. You can still give something importance and then if the circumstances warrant it, override it with what you judge to be a more valuable evidence for that situation. It's called dealing with things flexibly. Of course if you're shizen-scared, then you are going to be sticking as close to a formula as you can.
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
You're being misleading in your choice of cricketers Bearfax. "Quiney, Shaun Marsh, Bailey, Cowan, Dooley. All second tier players and did they succeed" Mate what about Clarke when he was selected? Why hasn't Hughes and UTK been successes then? There's more to selecting than a cricketers' first class average.
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
"Being made a selectors doesnt make you an expert, it just makes you accountable" What a load of weasely rubbish Bearfax. That's like saying someone being a Judge doesn't make them an expert at law. Being an expert makes you eligible for the position in the first place! "Any one with a brain above an ant could have done that." Now that we know Mitch Johnson was the best cricketer in the world last year, of course anyone could have. But very few had MJ pencilled in back then. Certainly the stat pushers were calling him wayward, and were advancing others' claims. It took selectors' expertise to select him, not simply cricinfo statistics.
Bearfax
Guest
Sometimes BHT the team are going to lose, no matter who you put in. But you surely choose the batsman who is most likely to give you the better chance and in the long run more likely to raise the team's chances. You dont do that by choosing older second tier players who look good and score a few big scores. Surely you do that by choosing someone with strong first class performances, and yes sticking with them. I mean anyone can surely see that the best performed first class players almost always move to the top. Are not Warner, Rogers, Clarke, Smith and even Watson amongst the best performed first class batsmen. That's no accident. Quiney, Shaun Marsh, Bailey, Cowan, Dooley. All second tier players and did they succeed (mind you I reserve judgement on Cowan because he has been improving markedly)? Choosing the wrong batsman can sometimes unbalance the side appreciably and put pressure on the other players For example when one opener fails, and it will happen probably 2 out of three innings, you want someone at 3 who gives you at least a one in two to three chance of succeeding, to ensure the lower order are not put under pressure. That has not been happening.
Bearfax
Guest
See Gaz you contradict what you start off saying. You claim to give stats value and then proceed to denigrate their value. You are getting back to observation and style being a better standard than results, outcomes. Stats arent the only issue surely in determining the value of a player, but they are by far the most important ingredient. Experienced players with 30+ averages are even more the sort to avoid because that's what you get, 30+. They've foolishly tried that with 30 something batsmen and consistently failed. And that should be logical. Their first class averages tell us their limitations. Check the stats, then based on those players with the stats who closest fit the bill of what you want, then select. But you are implying that someone with stats of say 45+ in batting should miss a position for someone with 35+ averages because of experience. Sorry but that ensures a probable 10 run variation in performance on average per innings. Stats first, then for those of equal or close averages, choose who is best suited to what you want. I mean you want to win the game not just look good.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
But Bearfax are you really suggesting that getting one batsman 'wrong' - is the reason why the Aussies have lost test matches? Anybody who is new to test match cricket has a bit of a free pass from me to not do well for at least a couple of matches as 1) it's a big step up and players need time to adjust and 2) it's the more senior players who have to hold the batting innings together. If getting one batsman wrong, means the Aussies lose test matches, I'd say the problem is the with the apparently automatic and experienced player picks, not the single position in the team that is up for grabs. Obviously everyone is a selector - it's more the lack of picking and sticking that bothers me. If men who are experienced in and around cricket pick a player, they need to not do a kneejerk on them after less than about five tests. If they are good enough to be picked in the first place, they need to be given enough rope to hang themselves with. As Cowan was given and earlier versions of Hughes have been given.
Bearfax
Guest
And look at how many stuff ups the recent selector have made. Being made a selectors doesnt make you an expert, it just makes you accountable (well its should but probably doesnt unfortunately). Personally Neville Nobody could have selected the basic team the selectors had no problems in Warner, Rogers, Clarke, Smith, Watson , Haddin, Johnson, Harris. Any one with a brain above an ant could have done that. Watson for all his critics remains paramount as all rounder in Australia. So all they have had to do is choose one batsman, one fast bowler and a spin bowler. Lyon is pretty good if only the second best spinner here. They had Pattinson, Starc, Siddle, Behrendorf, Hazelwood, etc ...I mean they had lost to choose from and do OK. But consistently they've got the last batsman wrong wrong wrong. Tey've had some great challengers but have picked few of them and have treated most like pariahs. To me, I could have picked a better Australian side than these turkeys and I know f... all about cricket. These guys for the past 3-4 years have been way off the ball. They've got the basic team, but they keep missing the targets with some of the rest of the selections. I suspect most Roarers agree.
Gaz
Guest
Stats are a very important part on selection but not the only thing, many factors to consider that make up the whole thing. KP is one of the best bats in England but would you slot him back in to the team based on pure stats and forget about other factors? Taking on just stats neglects the human element and it's failings or strengths that make cricket great, like it or not but selections will always have more than stats and that's for any team at any level of cricket. While I do look at stats I'm generally more interested in players who have been in the FC system for a number of years, even if they average mid 30+ they have experience on the different wickets and game situations and have had to hone their game over a number of seasons, some maybe off to a slow start in their career but have good numbers in the last few seasons. Do they have to play FC for another 5 years till they are 34 yrs old to get their average up to 40 overall to be considered or that they have averaged 45 + in their last few seasons. Not saying I'm right but something that gets overlooked. Less experienced cricketers who have something about them can be selected in the shorter forms of the game to see as a taster. I'd like to see Zampa as an example picked in a few ODI games this year, similar to how Boyce and Muirhead have been used in T20.