In Australian cricket, there is always an Ashes somewhere on the horizon, and almost all of our Test cricket is viewed through this prism at one point or another.
So while Steve Smith’s Australia rides roughshod in another run-fest romp over India, let’s have a look at what our Ashes Test side might look like, given every player has a perfect bill of health and has shown some semblance of their best form (a long bow to draw).
FOLLOW SCORES FROM DAY 3 OF THE CRICKET IN SYDNEY HERE
Starting from the top, David Warner is the most destructive opener in world cricket, and arguably the most consistent too. What a pleasure he’s been to watch over the last 12-18 months, combining batting maturity and shot selection to match his outrageous talent. If he’s not the first one picked, he can’t be far off it.
His opening partner will be Chris Rogers, and rightfully so. The left-hander has scored 1460 runs at an average of 40.5, with 10 fifties and four hundreds, since his return to Test cricket in the 2013 Ashes. While those numbers aren’t mind-blowing, they are just like his game – extremely solid. And when you’ve got an in-form partner like the explosive Warner at one end, extremely solid is absolutely perfect at the other.
Steve Smith should captain the side in England. He should also be the Test number three.
Smith’s form and mountains of runs need no further elaboration. He’s operating on a higher plane, and he’s shown at several points along the way in his career that he thrives with added responsibility. Up the order, and keep the skipper’s band on, I say.
It seems to have come about quickly, as the end often does for elite sportsman, but Michael Clarke is in the shadows of his impressive Test career. Hopefully his ailing body can get to the Ashes firstly, and then last the duration.
While Clarke’s powers are on an injury-induced wane (his last 35 Test innings have produced 1191 runs at an average of 39.7), he can still be a commanding presence at the crease when right, and has proven his intestinal fortitude when making big runs under physical and mental duress.
Still, with Clarke in the side and part of this particular batting order, the first four suddenly looks world class in a way that Australia hasn’t since the halcyon days when Justin Langer, Matthew Hayden and Ricky Ponting were followed by either Michael Hussey or Damien Martyn.
Joe Burns should hold the number five position, ahead of the incumbent Shaun Marsh. Runs are the only currency those two can deal in though, and while there may not be much between the two at the moment, Burns has relative youth on his side.
Marsh’s first-class statistics, combined with what we’ve seen of him at Test level, tells us that he simply doesn’t have the concentration to consistently succeed at the highest level.
The question has to be asked though – is Burns in the same boat? He might just be. But it’s worth finding out with him at five behind a strong top-four. If George Bailey can get five Ashes Tests to prove his worth, so too should Burns.
Now for the contentious number six spot.
The Australian selectors love an all-rounder in their side, even an under-performing one, and as a cricket-watching public we’ve become conditioned to finding a spot for one when putting our own side together.
Thus we get to the biggest conundrum of all. Shane Watson – the riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an injury-plagued enigma. Of course, his vociferous critics have a much briefer description for him – in fact, it only has four letters.
If there’s to be a batting all-rounder, it will be between Watson and Mitch Marsh. I’d lean to Watson, given he’s the better batsman. And his bowling is more reliable and probably more suited to English conditions, regardless of whether the pitches are prepared with some give in them or the dry dustbowls we saw last time out.
With the bat, Watson can be allowed, and should be encouraged, to play with freedom and positive intent at number six, if not downright aggression. If he can spend some time against the second new ball, then all the better.
If there looks to be some spin, Stephen O’Keefe and Glenn Maxwell come into the reckoning. The former would bat further down the order as a bowling all-rounder if the selectors want someone to spin it the other way to Nathan Lyon, while Maxwell would need a strong finish with the bat to the 2014-15 season, either as part of the World Cup squad, or at Shield level.
Brad Haddin needs to make some more runs, but it’s hard to see him not being there when hostilities commence. The people who talk about ‘pure glovemen’ are wearying. A keeper must contribute with the bat, and it has always been the case. Adam Gilchrist just crystallised the already sound thinking.
Peter Nevill or Tim Ludeman could be the travelling back-up, or perhaps Peter Handscomb if the selectors want to declare their hand for the next decade.
Mitch Johnson and Ryan Harris pick themselves from a pace perspective, with the only question being who should support them as the third quick.
We haven’t seen the very best of James Pattinson at Test level for a couple of years, but he should be given first crack if he can get some first-class overs under his belt. We shouldn’t forget his world-class potential.
Josh Hazlewood looks to have an impressive future, and is the right back-up if and when Pattinson or Harris break down. Mitch Starc can come along for the ride as Johnson’s understudy, but should only really play if both Harris and Hazlewood are in the same side.
Nathan Lyon is a good ordinary off-spinner whose place probably shouldn’t be as secure as it seems to be. Take out his 12-wicket haul against India in Adelaide, and his 2014 returns were 21 wickets at 54.4 from eight Tests. Surely we demand more penetration and consistency than that.
That said, he does an okay job in a difficult role, and he’s probably the best we’ve got. As a rule, an off-spinner is an off-spinner is an off-spinner.
Fawad Ahmed is the second-leading wicket-taker at Shield level this season, with a respectable 18 at 30.72, and should be looking to secure an English county contract for the northern summer, if he hasn’t already. His leg spin should be seriously considered if the pitches are tailored to break up and prey on Australia’s weakness against spin.
The Australian Test side has been in a state of permanent flux since the retirements of Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey, and will likely be again once Rogers, Haddin and Harris call it quits, but between now and then, there’s an Ashes series in England to win or draw.
Here’s my side to help us do it: D. Warner, C. Rogers, S. Smith (c), M. Clarke, J. Burns, S. Watson, B. Haddin, M. Johnson, J. Pattinson, R. Harris, N. Lyon.
Travelling squad members: S. Marsh, M. Marsh, P. Handscomb, J. Hazlewood, M. Starc, S. O’Keefe, F. Ahmed.
JMW
Guest
What about Lyon and SE Marsh, whose beds have they been warming?
JMW
Guest
Disturbing stats! Not many players pushing 50 in first class. Mind you it makes Watto's case stronger given he bowls handily as well. Maybe Lynn is the next number 3 of substance?
richard
Guest
If Watson Plays another test for Australia, it is incumbent on all of us to find out who he is having sex with in the upper echelons of Cricket Australia. It would point to real trouble at the heart of our National game! However, I doubt he will play another test.
Chudd
Guest
Cam, As good a stab as you can have at it this far out. Good work. Chudd
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
It's hard comparing to some of the all-time freaks of the game who were able to simultaneously be one of the best batsmen and one of the best bowlers in the team. You'll probably struggle to see those sorts of players anymore. The tendency in sport is that as it becomes more professional you get more specialist and less multi-faceted players, that's just how it works. Which is also why you regularly see that at lower levels of cricket you often have the same player being the best bowler and batsman in a team. Hey, I have had many years of park cricket where I scored the most runs and took the most wickets for the team. It's not unusual to find teams with the opening bowler being the best top 4 batsman at that level. I doubt we are likely to ever see that sort of thing at test level again though.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Bowling allrounders are harder to fit in. Effectively they can be picked as a bowler who simply strenghten's the tail and if good enough may bat above the keeper with the keeper batting at 8. Think of Bowling allrounders in the history of test cricket. Guys like Ian Botham, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram, Richard Hadlee. Basically, they were their teams top bowler who also happened to be pretty decent with the bat. Basically, to be a bowling allrounder you are selected as one of the top bowlers and have the bonus of being a good batsman. While a batting allrounder is selected as one of the top 6 batsmen with the bonus of being a decent bowler.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I agree with your idea TWAS, I cannot, logically, say that someone WILL perform better than Watson. But by picking a 25 year old, you are giving yourself a chance that someone MIGHT perform better. The whole debate around Watto now is that using words like "potential" and "promise" are ridiculous. At 33 he is a player either at his peak or declining, which means the returns we get now are as good as it gets or will get. The question then is, is he value adding to the team to such an extent that we need him to win? If he isn't value adding to that level (I'm neither saying one way or the other), then he's taking up a spot that can be used to develop a player who MIGHT turn into a value adding, matching winning player. I'm not expecting (i.e. guaranteeing) Burns to turn into a better batsman that Watson, because as you say, his statistics are only as good (or even a dash worse) than Watson's were at a simliar age. However he is still young enough that he might develop into a 40+ top order batsman, something we need moving forward and something we now KNOW Watson will never be.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Frustrating I researched and wrote a massive comment and it was deleted. Of the 25 tests from India in 2012 to the end of the UAE series, Watson played 14 and was at 3 for 7 of them. Clarke was at 3 once, got a duck and was moved in the 2nd innings. When we played 6 recognized batsmen Clarke and Smith were regularly pushed to 5 and 6. When we played Faulkner and Mitch Marsh they would bump back up. There doesn't appear to be a lot of favoritism to playing Watson at 3 or up the order as he spend 5/14 tests at 4, 5 or 6 depending on who was in the team. There also is not much evidence of wanting to try Clarke in the problem spot since Ponting moved to 4 and none for Smith. The trend has been to bat them as far down the order as the other 4 batsmen will allow actually.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Chris, Fair enough, sometimes it's hard to look back and remember that Watson, as we're talking about a debut over a decade ago now...
The Bush
Roar Guru
Chris, I am more than happy for Burns to continue to be selected over Marsh and agree that we don't need two (2) allrounders. I am just pointing out that history does not support our preference, as the selectors have shown a preference for both in the team, when fit. However, perhaps they've changed their mind with Watso bowling successfully and Burns scoring a few runs? Personally, I hope they persist with Burns in the side and send M Marsh back to Shield. It'd be great to see M Marsh take his experience over the last few months and convert it into some runs in the Shield. As an allround is now considered a necessity (I've been convinced in recent weeks), then it would be amazing if Marsh could increase that batting average closer to forty (instead of sup 30) over the next year or two whilst we wait for Watson to go off into the sunset... As for Burns, well someones gotta go with Clarke comes back so he's out whether it's due to M Marsh or Clarke, as S Marsh will be favoured over him...
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
And 3 of those 4 average 50. Marsh has only briefly caught back up as his international career has been short enough for 2 decent innings that weren't centuries to have an impact. What it appears to say is guys that average 50, will average 50 at test level, but those pushing to be above 40 at FC level, struggle with the step up. There was a time when a number of players improved their average from FC to test cricket, but these players just are no longer emerging. Now stats like Warner's skew this a little, as he barely played FC cricket before test cricket, but a most of these batsmen have a lot of FC cricket to include into their stats. So my point is the guys average 35-45 don't seem to be stepping up. If it was just Watson you could just say he isn't cut out for it, but its the majority. Watson's and North were actually able to keep their averages pretty close at the step up compared to other players in this group. Obviously it's not all just career averages. Current form and other factors need to be considered, but the fact is, for somebody to outperform Watson, you'd have to expect them to outperform him at test level, despite not being able to do it at a lower level.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Our test captains have barely missed a test over the last few decades. If Clarke's injuries are going to prevent him from playing every match, then I'd prefer the continuity of Smith.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
As you point out, 4 of the current players pretty much have similar First Class and test averages. So it's not so much having to find a player with a first class average of 57 if you want them to average 45 in test cricket, but about finding the batsman who's able to really step up and replicate their first class form at test level. You get some batsmen who thrive against the better opposition. They focus more when faced with a bigger challenge and have better records against stronger opposition. These are the sorts of guys you want, they sometimes end up with better test averages than FC averages. (Although that's often because they just kept getting better while playing test cricket, and a high percentage of their non-test first class cricket was played earlier in their career). That's what makes the job of selectors so much more difficult than just looking at statistics. Because some people just have what it takes to step up and others don't. Determining what makes that difference can be the toughest thing. Of course, it's easier to do that if you have a plethora of batsmen averaging 50+ in shield cricket year in, year out rather than having to hope one of the guys averaging 40 has what it takes to take their game to the next level and increase that average significantly even at the next level up!
Cameron Rose
Expert
Some good points in there Sheek. I don't think he's the mentally strongest cricketer we've ever produced, no. In one way he has been, to continuously come back from injury, but once in the side, he is someone who can get lost in his own head, to the detriment of his game.
Cameron Rose
Expert
Thanks JMW. Haha, yes, it seems a couple of people have liked that word! I think Shane Watson probably generates more debate on here than all the other cricketers put together!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
If Watson does a lot better in the top 3 than in the middle order, but Smith does just as well no matter where he bats, then there is sense in keeping Watson at #3 while he's in the team and batting Smith further down. And as for choosing him at #3 when Watson was injured in SA and Doolan got the gig, at the time Smith's test average was 38 and on the rise, but he was still finding his way a bit. It was actually during that series that he started to look the solid player that we are seeing now. He then came back, captained NSW, batting at #3 to win the Shield final, and has gone from strength to strength since. The earliest point where someone might have been considering Smith to bat at #3 in test cricket was in the UAE, and when Doolan was dropped, Hughes really should have been the one to take that #3 spot at the time, rather than Smith, but for some reason they went for the worst option they could find and picked Maxwell. Then Watson was back, and as a batsman who's issue isn't starting and getting lots of low scores, but converting his starts, while also being a better top order than middle order player, it makes sense that if he's in the team he bats at #3. But if Watson goes out, replace him with another allrounder who bats in the middle order and shift Smith to #3.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Fair call. I should have said success, not consistency compared to Sobers and Kallis. My point is if Watson goes in at 1/50 20 overs into the game, number 4 is very unlikely to be going in at 2/55 25 overs in. You can have a good expectation that he will contribute 30+ runs and bat for 20+ overs. We have to consider that players like Smith and Clarke's success is often assisted by other players less remembered, but also less influential contributions. Coming in after 40 overs ensures that the strike bowlers have been fatigued a little and the new ball has been blunted, maximizing the opportunity for these players to score runs. I'd rather have Watson scoring 35 at 3, to help Clarke and Smith knock up 100 at 4 and 5, then one of them batting at 3, being caught cheaply (i.e. for 30 or so), and then Watson coming in and probably still only getting 40 - because he isn't as good as them.
jack
Guest
All this watson problem started when people messed his mind with “You must convert 50’s into 100’s” All hell broke lose into his mind & his career from then on. He never went in with the aim of scoring 100’s before i.e, 2009-11 & he was the best batsman during that time. When people messed his mind to score 100s, he became over-thinking, worrying & always under pressure Watson. Remember his quick 100 at perth. He was asked to score quickly in that situation & so He didn’t think abt 100 & hence he made it. Can someone meet him as soon as possible & tell “forget abt 100. Don’t think abt anything(50s,100s,success,failure,..). Just go out there & have fun. Just like backyard cricket.” Talent+right mindset=success. (Right mindset = Not thinking abt success). When he had carefree mindset, he made so many 50's to 90s scores & averaged (above 50 as a opener for 2 years) against great bowling attacks on very good pitches(2009-11). Now, since he has (I must score 100 mindset), he's not even scoring 50 against weak attack on flat tracks. I request Watson fans whoever is nearby to his place in Australia to convey my message.
jammel
Guest
Train - mate, lots of mixed messages from you today. When comparing Watson to Sobers and Kallis earlier..., you said "Unlike them though, he was unable to find the same consistency with the bat at test level." Now you are saying that one thing Watson has always been is a consistent scorer….. "One thing Watson has always been is consistent … If he's scoring, he's likely to continue scoring…." To the extent Watson has been consistent, I'd say consistently mediocre - hence a Test average in the mid-30s. Hope he gets some big runs in the next dig.
Lowthman
Guest
SR Watson 2 for 51