With the national selection panel rumoured to be on the cusp of announcing a Hilditch-esque super squad of 43 players for the first two Tests against India, Rod Marsh and company face some familiar questions.
Is Shane Watson more likely to be LBW while simultaneously pulling a hamstring, glute and groin batting at number three or six?
When is the best time to drop Nathan Lyon and continue eroding his confidence?
If Mitchell Starc plays two consecutive Tests, will the apocalypse shortly follow?
While these will all no doubt be kicked around in the 15-minute selection meeting on Skype, perhaps the most important consideration for our selectors is this – should new players be selected on performance or potential?
The inclusion of one GBS Maxwell in the squad for the recent series against Pakistan indicated the NSP are still grappling with this quandary.
On one hand, they finally picked the best performed Shield spinner from the past few years in Stephen O’Keefe. This was countered by the man with the silver hammer, who appears both capable and entirely inept from one moment to the next in his appearances to date. More consistent Shield performances by Maxwell were supposed to herald a new benchmark in his maturity, but even the selectors admitted he was picked on potential. A ‘what-if’, x-factor choice who would either burn brightly or fizzle like cheap fireworks.
With another era of change awaiting our Test side, most likely after the 2015 Ashes, the NSP will continue to be presented with the potential versus performance debate. This will include batsmen, bowlers and ‘keepers.
Pat Cummins has plenty of Test potential, and performed amazingly well on debut at age 18 in his sole Test to date. Decisions will need to be made whether to risk his still-developing frame in longer games when Ryan Harris’ knee eventually disintegrates like funeral ashes.
Similar calls need to be made when choosing between proven performers like Jackson Bird and those with a high ceiling like Josh Hazlewood.
Batting wise, should Phil Hughes be partnered with David Warner to open the innings when Chris Rogers eventually retires? Or will the selectors believe there more upside in an untried player like Joe Burns or Jordan Silk?
On the ‘keeping front, is a veteran like Queensland’s Chris Hartley the best option to replace Brad Haddin, or will a young gun like Sam Whiteman jump the queue after his breakout 2013-14 season? Is the best Victorian candidate Matthew Wade or Peter Handscomb, who has started the Shield season in devastating form?
Maintaining a strong Test side is a challenging goal, especially in the absence of ready-made replacements like Michael Hussey and Adam Gilchrist rolling off the 90s assembly line. Picking a player through sheer weight of runs and wickets is obviously the preferred option, but the selectors may not have that luxury.
If those pencilled in for higher honours don’t hold up their end of the bargain, we may see an increase in selection gambles in the next few years. Rod Marsh is an outstanding judge and developer of young talent, and if those calls need to be made, I’d back him to succeed more often than not.
In the immediate future, we are fortunate to have a perfect replacement for Clarke in Callum Ferguson, who has spent the last month reminding us what a class player he is. Here’s hoping a few more pieces of the puzzle will be evident by the end of the summer.
Don Freo
Guest
His performances have been equaled or bettered by other bowlers already this year. He is not the only one taking bags...but he has had a couple of unproductive sessions as well.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
I think we'll find out if it's a policy when they name the Ashes squad next year. If Sayers continues taking bags of wickets and is subsequently overlooked in perfect conditions for him, there may be something afoot.
Don Freo
Guest
I don't think you can read that into those bowlers. Copeland was only a Shield bowler and was a flop for Oz. McKay was just a slower ball trundler...for me the most frustrating bowler to watch in ODI. Played for 20 games too many on a failing slower ball but had nothing else...no control of length. Sayers is another kettle of fish. Very good at Shield level but that might be his limit. The best batsmen will sit on him and punish his loose stuff...and there is plenty of loose stuff with Kookaburra balls that don't have consistent movement (I think CA should change its ball contract). Sayers has really bad days when a ball is not moving. His real problem, however, is that there are too many ahead of him...like 9 or 10 bowlers. Remember, big numbers at Shield level are often the result of playing every game. CA doesn't allow cricketers to play cricket all the time. The gym seems to be option #1.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
I would argue it's pretty much confirmed by Trent Copeland dropping out of consideration, along with Sayers constantly being overlooking, despite taking bags of wickets. There certainly seems to be a preference for quicker bowlers. McKay has also been left out of ODI side and replaced by faster options, despite being number 2 in ICC rankings. I do take your point on context, but selection choices since Lehmann took over certainly indicate a preference for all-out pace.
Don Freo
Guest
That's what I mean by context. He said it about Siddle because Sidds can bowl at 140kph plus...but didn't and that was why he was losing effectiveness. That is not a blanket policy...Lehmann is not that dumb. Roarers, however, seem to have re-construed that as a truth that now dictates selection. If Siddle re-claims pace he is a Test bowler but he is as weak as every vegetarian at the moment...(remember the last time we suggested his diet?). At 130kph, we would be better with someone who does something with the ball like Behrendorff, Sayers (only Shield standard) or Sandhu. At the moment, Hopes is bowling faster than Siddle and that would justify Hopes' selection ahead of him. I'm relieved that that was the only link. That lays down no policy at all.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
It hasn't been raised as a blanket policy, but it certainly cost Siddle his place on at least one occasion. Initial report - http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/03/01/siddle-needs-bowl-faster-lehmann Some recent concern expressed about the policy on The Roar recently - http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/11/08/lehmanns-140kmh-rule-cruels-sayers/
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Absolutely. This is what I always think about him. If they treated hiim like Starc, he'd be rocking.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Cynical call Chris but yes,history will probably repeat, Starc may be the new "workhorse" when Siddle's gone, if his body holds up.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Darren Lehmann first raised the 140 k rule when for Siddle when he was dropped in SA early this year, remember Don?
Don Freo
Guest
Really Johnny! As if Michael Clarke would be able to bully Rod Marsh. He'd be sat on his bum straight away.
Don Freo
Guest
Johnny, you ranted after you said, "Rant over". Clarke is great and a very, very good captain.
Don Freo
Guest
It was said before last week by someone else.
Don Freo
Guest
Fekete, Rainbird, Paris, Mackin...might jump half a cricket generation.
Don Freo
Guest
I won't believe that rule exists unless I read it. When was it said and in what context? Was it actually said at all? The selectors themselves won't follow that rule if someone raises their head...as Behrendorff is already doing. Sandhu and Sayers also. Speed guns are not accurate enough to determine selection policy. That's like blokes quoting stats devoid of context and circumstance.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
That made me chuckle, Chris. Kinda harks back to certain guys you'd only pick at the WACA or the SCG. 1 Test a series may result in a Bradman-esque average!
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Fair call, Chris. Clarke has certainly been shouldering (backing more appropriate?) more than his share of the load past few years. Injuries are the worst. I shudder to think what his back will be like at age 50. Hopefully reduced load and a few years of pilates, etc will help after he retires.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Seriously mate, what's your problem. Everything I've ever seen about Clarke he seems to be just a genuinely good guy. On top of that he's basically carried the Australian test team on his crook back for the last few years. Have you ever had to push through lots of pain to continually work through debilitating injury, give your all for a team that is continually crumbling around you and still force yourself to always speak positively? I didn't think so!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Shaun Marsh is one that should just be picked for a single test and then dropped. Because he'll get picked, come out and score a hundred in hist first test after being picked and then not reach double figures again for the rest of the series. So you just pick him for the first test, let him get runs in that but don't fall for the trap of thinking that it will be different this time and pick him again.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Hi Toy, are you referring to S Marsh? I don't mind him, and if he tons up again in Shield game starting tomorrow, I'm happy for them to pick him. I think it's great to give players some extra pressure to perform, with a potential spot on the line. Will be interesting to see who stands up.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
He's out of the tour match, can't see him in the test match at all. Hope that Smith comes up fit though!