The final Test against India commences in Sydney today, with the inclusion of Mitchell Starc in place of the injured Mitchell Johnson demonstrating the challenges the current summer fixture imposes on the national selection panel.
While Starc has performed well in his Big Bash League since his post-Brisbane demotion, ultimately this has involved four-over spells against batsmen looking to hit him out of the ground.
Are these adequate grounds for recalling a bowler, just weeks after a mediocre Test outing against India?
The selectors are clearly limited in opportunities to assess Test form while our domestic scene is in T20 carnival mode. Even still, it is odd to think much credence is given to BBL form when choosing our Test team.
This quandary first presented itself when Shaun Marsh undertook a pre-Boxing Day fitness test in a BBL game against the Melbourne Renegades on December 22, 2011. On that occasion, Marsh smashed 99 from just 52 balls to lead the Perth Scorchers to an emphatic victory. Strong form, no?
Unfortunately, this was followed just days later by returns of 0 and 3 against India at the MCG. Marsh then added another duck at Sydney, 11 on his hometown WACA, and 3 and 0 in Adelaide to finish the 2011-12 in devastating form. Devastating for his career, that is. Marsh did not play another Test for over two years.
By picking players for our Test side based predominantly on T20 form, the selectors are arguably short-changing everyone. Batsmen are rewarded for smashing bowlers around for 20 overs at the most. Bowlers get bonus points for taking the wickets of batsmen more intent on hitting crowd catches than building an innings.
Another worrying trend to emerge from the modern BBL summer is the ‘potential’ approach to selection, which has seen baggy greens given to players such as Glenn Maxwell. The most recent example of this is the bizarre reappearance of one Ashton Agar in the squad for the Sydney Test.
Selection gurus have spruiked Agar’s short-form value in recent weeks, with Ricky Ponting dubbing him a ‘smoky’ for the World Cup squad. His BBL figures are quite good for a spinner, with returns of 1/26, 2/22 and 1/8 in his three home games this summer.
However this is countered by figures of 1/53 and 0/105 in his most recent Shield game before the T20 break. Although he may become a genuine spinning all-rounder one day, these numbers do not demonstrate a bowler demanding Test selection.
Ultimately, BBL performances should only result in two outcomes: selection in the Australian T20 side, and big, fat IPL contracts. Most players would be very pleased with this.
For now though, let’s encourage our selectors to stay focused on Shield performances, where the attributes required for a player to succeed in Test cricket can be better assessed. Patience, strategy, mental strength and overall endurance are unlikely to become by-products of the shortest form of the game any time soon.
One can only hope the selectors set the bar a bit higher for Test selection in future summers.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Fair call, Sheek. It's a disappointing reality, unfortunately, isn't it? Thanks for reading again.
sheek
Roar Guru
Gidday Daniel, Agree 100% but unfortunately this is the future. Money speaks more than logic progression. So guess what wins? We all know T20 form doesn't constitute test potential. Even CA knows that. But hey, where there's a buck to be made, they're not going to worry about the 'why', only the 'how.' And what we, the fans, think, will only be become relevant when the bottom falls out of the whole kibosh.
The Bush
Roar Guru
It's called a career decision. If he wants to be a Test player, stand yourself down from these endless ODIs and T20 comps and focus on Shield and County. Plenty of young people make tough career decisions everyday - wake up, you can't has ever your cake it eat it too...
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Hi Mitch, thanks for the comment. Warner is an interesting one. I agree his selection at the time was based primarily on potential, although I believe he had scored a first class double century shortly before his initial selection. There was certainly not the usual 1-2 high scoring Shield season before his selection, however, which was certainly a prerequisite in the 90s and early 2000s. Steve Smith was also arguably picked partly on potential, and I believe he has also had a few good innings in the past year. There is certainly a lot of competition for bowling spots, with new challengers emerging every season. Last summer, Sayers and Sandhu were the two bowlers tearing up Shield cricket, with Jackson Bird performing strongly the year before that. This summer, Behrendorff has been in devastating form in long and short form cricket, and has to be under consideration for the Ashes this year. Add to that Pattinson and Cummins on the comeback trail from injuries, and the selectors will have to play rock-paper-scissors, best of 5, to narrow the group down to three bowlers for every Test in the coming years. I agree with you on batsmen to an extent, although big scorers like Burns and Lynn have still be kept at bay until Burns' very recent Test debut.
ozinsa
Guest
And Starc's alternative would have been "Starc acknowledges that T20 form isn't a good reflection on test playing ability and gives up on any chance of a recall this summer"? The players know wickets and runs represent form and confidence. That they were earned in a different format is only relevant if the selectors rate their first class performances prior to this year.
Mitch Sabine
Roar Rookie
i mostly agree, except for on one point. potential. the prime example of such is david warner who was picked initially more on hope than form and that's worked out pretty well. it's bemusing to me why Starc got picked as well when you consider the depth of fast bowling options available and the fact Starc has been pretty erratic in previous Tests. but when it comes to batsmen, they get a lot more benefit of the doubt at the moment because of our woeful batting stocks hence the reason guys like Maxwell get a look in.
bigmick1
Guest
Starc has a test batting average over 30, and he takes wickets. Which puts him above: Watson, Rogers, and Marsh, in my book.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Thanks, Darshan. I appreciate you taking the time to read and leave a comment.
Darshan Kawar
Roar Pro
Absolutely agree with you Daniel. Test cricket requires immense patience, good temperament and skills. T20 cannot be a yardstick to select players in test squad.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
It's a hard one, isn't it, Paul? I proposed moving the Shield season back to commence earlier and finish by late November in an article on here a few months back, but that doesn't eliminate the issue of players not having played recent Shield games later in the Test series each summer.
Paul D
Roar Guru
I’m not so sure Agar was picked in the squad on his 20/20 form, I think he was picked based on other qualities that obviously Lehmann sees, which the rest of us don’t. Shrug. He’s not playing anyway so it’s not really an issue. As you say, the calendar puts the selectors in a bit of a dilemma – do you take into account recent performances, of which big bash is the only mode of cricket being played, or do you just ignore form for the upcoming ODI tri/series & the world cup, and pick guys based on where they were back in October/November when we were playing Matador cup? I don’t think it impacts batting so much, at least in terms of 20/20 vs ODI – however the bowling strategies are very different between the two. Particularly spinners.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Absolutely. There are a number of players performing well in BBL who can't get a game with their respective states. Aaron Finch is certainly an interesting case. He has Test aspirations, and performs brilliant in ODI/T20 cricket, but always seems to crash and burn in Shield games for Victoria. Very odd.
b
Guest
I completely agree that 20/20 cricket is worthless in terms of test selection. It might help players like Starc (who are already vying for test selection) to get some rhythm and confidence, time in the middle is time in the middle, but the two forms of the game are entirely different. I don't really follow hit and giggle, but I imagine there could be players who could have quite a career in that form of the game, but never be good enough to play test cricket?
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Fair points, B. Main point of this article wasn't to argue for or against the selection of Starc, but more to point out that selecting players arguably based on T20 form (Agar) is fraught.
b
Guest
Saying Starc has been selected on 20/20 form completely ignores his past performances, his talent, and the spot he has earnt on the Australian bench.
b
Guest
As I pointed out, it was misleading because Starc was not dropped/demoted, Harris came back into the side and Starc would have had to have played exceptionally, not just well, to dislodge Hazlewood. It was always going to be a one off test for Starc. Also Starc is not being selected based on 20/20 games. He is being selected on his talent, on past test performances and on the fact he is one of four young players vying for the single open bowling position in the Australian team. Hazlewood has that spot, Pattinson and Cummins are coming back from injury, which leaves Starc with the opportunity to fill in for an injured bowler. For another bowler to leapfrog over Starc would be a bigger shock selection than picking Starc. Starc didn't bowl well in Brisbane, but that was just one test match. It's not easy to just jump into the side and pull off a match winning, or even top notch, performance. Even with decent shield performances another bowler, like Behrendorff, might find it difficult to find his feet in one match. Burns didn't bat well, but he hasn't been dropped based on one match, he has been given the chance to justify his selection, why shouldn't Starc be given the same opportunity? Completely ignoring the existence of 20/20 cricket, Starc should still be in this test for the injured Johnson.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Fair point, Jo. Yet another challenge of the modern cricket calendar, unfortunately.
Jo M
Guest
There is a really good interview with Maxi on the CA website in which he says he prefers shield because he can take his time and not have to think about over rates and the like, but he doesn't get to play enough of it and he wouldn't be getting another red ball game until October. Makes it difficult for guys like him and Starc to be consistent when they don't get the game time.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
You're a real charmer, Simoc. Perhaps a career in greeting cards may be an option? If the selectors don't pay any attention to stats, we're all in trouble. Thanks for reading, once again.
Daniel Gray
Roar Guru
Hi Jo, Starc is just one example of the difficulties the selectors face in selecting Test replacements with no Shield games for six weeks, which you rightly highlight. He has certainly performed well, and put in some great short form performances, as well as a couple of good Shield games. It's hard to get figures in non-existent Shield games, but it's also hard to believe he will be dramatically improved from a poor performance in the Brisbane Test.