World Cup wash-out could cost Australia against New Zealand

By Geoff Lemon / Expert

Australia’s World Cup match against Bangladesh was Michael Clarke’s fitness deadline. The date was described as harsh. Shane Warne accused selectors of trying to “break” the absent captain. But in the end, Clarke didn’t have to play.

No one did, as the Gabba match was washed out by the storms that have dumped down on Queensland for days.

We waited and watched all afternoon, as Brendon Julian did his best to act like he was interested, Twitter kept us supplied with dismal photos of Genesis-inspired floods around inner Brisbane, and the broadcasters found time to replay New Zealand’s match against England half a dozen times. It was easy enough.

Bangladesh would have been only too happy to share the points once the ICC called off the game late on Saturday afternoon. That leaves both sides on three points behind Pool A leaders New Zealand with six, while Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Scotland and England are yet to move off zero. Do the job against Scotland, and Bangladesh could find themselves trumping England for a quarter-final.

For Australia though, the washout is far from a relief. Aside from losing that almost certain point, the match was supposed to be a chance to fine-tune the side and get Clarke some proper game time.

Australia’s next assignment is a trip to Auckland to tackle New Zealand on Saturday. The Black Caps have already played three times for three wins. Australia will face them having played only one match a fortnight earlier.

Including Clarke in the squad was an uncharacteristically flaky move from Australia’s selectors. Now, a captain who has made it uninjured through four ODIs in the last 18 months is supposed to resume his career and test out his body on the biggest stage against the World Cup’s form team on their home ground. New Zealand are on top of their game, swinging both the ball and the bat outrageously to devastate opponents. No pressure.

While no final XI was announced at the Gabba, it was generally known at the ground that Clarke would have played as expected in place of alternate captain George Bailey. But the Bangladesh game could also have been last chance saloon for Shane Watson given his recent batting returns.

Now the side for New Zealand must be picked without that sighter.

Mitchell Marsh is often suggested as Watson’s replacement, but is unproven in the top order and offers bowling devoid of threat. Five fortunate wickets against an imploding England don’t prove much in a bowling career that has produced little else.

Don’t get me wrong, Marsh seems a nice fellow and he can certainly give a cricket ball an thump. But there’s a level of overexcitement given his still very limited international exposure.

James Faulkner’s absence leaves Australia’s best configuration unclear. With Marsh at No. 8 they’re light on bowling and heavy on all-rounders, but fast man Patrick Cummins missed a run against Bangladesh after also missing out on the Mitch-heavy attack picked for England.

Collectively that leaves plenty of doubt over who will play, where they’ll play and what sort of touch they’ll be in, as the Australians shape up for their big challenge of the pool stage. It does matter: aside from abstract things like bragging rights and momentum, there are practical things to play for.

If Australia manage to beat New Zealand this time around, the two teams are almost certain to end up first and second in their pool, meaning they couldn’t meet again until the final at the MCG.

But if Australia lose this pool match then they’re still a chance to finish third, meaning the two sides could meet again in the semi-finals. With New Zealand finishing higher in the group, such a match would be played in Auckland: a far sterner challenge than any other side on Australian soil.

The pool game will be stern enough. Both teams feature impressive fast bowlers, versatile all-rounders and powerful hitters. Eden Park is a small ground and scores could be huge.

But we may already have seen a trump card: if New Zealand’s bowlers can move the ball through the air like they did against England, they’ll provide all sorts of trouble for an Australian batting line-up that favours the booming drive and is suspect against swing.

The contest is bound to be one of the highlights of the World Cup, but regardless of how different Bangladesh would have been in style, Australia’s management could well find themselves wishing they’d had the chance for that last hit-out.

This article was first published on Wisden India.

The Crowd Says:

2015-02-25T04:18:21+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


No one expects too much from him. We have seen what he has done and can rest secure that he is already a safe pair of hands. Where is the failure or the unsteadiness? Are you expecting that in the future?

AUTHOR

2015-02-25T04:10:29+00:00

Geoff Lemon

Expert


He hasn't had time. He's a new player. Expecting too much from him is just silly. Even if he is from WA.

AUTHOR

2015-02-25T04:09:38+00:00

Geoff Lemon

Expert


Replying to a comment citing averages and strike rates, it's entirely relevant to talk about wicket-taking.

2015-02-23T14:56:31+00:00

raz

Guest


India in icc tournaments is a different team, it wont be that easy to beat them . Remember ct 2013,they were loosing left and right before that too,but still absolutely thumped everyone in that tourney .

2015-02-23T08:49:48+00:00

Renegade

Guest


Gold ;)

2015-02-23T08:00:13+00:00

VivGilchrist

Guest


Maybe they should act more gentlemanly like Broad, Anderson, and Kholi? Or have the team first mentality of Dwayne Bravo? Or maybe the ball manipulating skills of some South Africans? Or the discipline of Ryder? Seriously, look in you own backyard, champo.

2015-02-22T22:30:38+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Jack you wouldn't have heard that from anyone who knows. The fact that Australians have sell out support every time they play would suggest there IS a way people can support them. If we factor in your moral imperative, it must be because they are NOT nasty. That person whispering rumours into your impressionable ear might be the nasty one. You might need to learn how to think independently.

2015-02-22T22:09:32+00:00

Chinmusick

Roar Rookie


Not necessarily - If he's responsible for 30% of our total of 567 then I think we aren't in trouble.

2015-02-22T15:00:08+00:00

Jack

Guest


I've heard Australia are the nastiest and dirtiest team with their sledging and carrying on. I don't know how people could support a team that stoops to that level. Everyone in world cricket hates them.

2015-02-22T13:57:02+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


I'm wondering how what somebody earns has anything to do with how a game of cricket is played. Bitter at all, Brian?

2015-02-22T13:55:02+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Where have you seen him fail since he has been elevated into the Oz team? All he can do is perform. That's how, "...someone who’s yet to prove himself", proves himself. He has.

2015-02-22T13:51:12+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Geoff, if you think Marsh's main role with the ball is to take wickets, you misunderstand a few things. His role is to keep control in those middle overs and, by restricting an explosion in scoring, the strike bowlers are able to attack in later overs with run rate pressure. Very cute to chuck out a figure that suits an argument but doesn't correlate to his role in the team.

AUTHOR

2015-02-22T13:19:55+00:00

Geoff Lemon

Expert


Them's fighting words, Tom. He's a promising new player but he's getting a lot of backing for someone who's yet to prove himself.

AUTHOR

2015-02-22T13:15:26+00:00

Geoff Lemon

Expert


Unfounded? Yet to bowl the house down? Before that England game he'd bowled in 22 innings across all three international forms and taken 8 wickets. First-class and List A figures don't necessarily prove much, but even taking them into account, a good chunk of his record comes from before his back stress fractures forced a remodelled action. The new Mitch Marsh is a good bit slower and a whole lot less threatening. He could improve, but has shown very little with the ball to date. Nothing controversial about that statement. And yes, Watson is unquestionably a far better bowler. Poor batting returns this summer though.

2015-02-22T12:26:09+00:00

Brendon

Guest


Even if Australia loses this match against NZ and we beat Sri Lanka we will finish second and get a home semi. Considering India thumped South Africa it might be better to finish 4th than 3rd since theres a good change we could beat the top team from group B and then get a home semi.

2015-02-22T12:25:41+00:00

AlanKC

Guest


Time will tell - there have been plenty of comments regarding Australia only beating "ordinary"teams (Ie England and India) recently however India have just creamed SA (for their second win of the summer), another "red hot". I doubt Australia will be ambushed by the Black Caps, although stranger things have happened. I'm still backing Oz in a canter, largely due to their pace attack and obviously backed up by their batting depth, but regardless I'll be watching with bated breath.

2015-02-22T11:02:28+00:00

Jo M

Guest


You always put up exactly the same thing. Who is it that you want out of the team?

2015-02-22T10:41:24+00:00

Bob

Guest


What if the final gets washed out? That is ridiculous

2015-02-22T10:39:20+00:00

Bob

Guest


Not to mention the slim pickings you can see on FTA. Have seen a total of one game so far.

2015-02-22T10:37:16+00:00

Bob

Guest


Good team but they will be copping a firestorm of quick bowling? Pretty clear what Australia's tactics will be.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar