Australian wicketkeeper Brad Haddin could be targeting one last home summer. The reality, though, is that he is very fortunate still to be in the Test line-up such has been his floundering efforts with the bat.
Over the past 16 months, Haddin has made just 230 runs at an average of 15 from 11 Tests.
The 37-year-old’s returns have been so dire that even Australian number 11 Nathan Lyon has a superior batting average during that period.
It must be said that his glovework has not waned, in fact it was excellent even on the up and down pitches of the Caribbean amid Australia’s 2-0 series win over the Windies.
But no Test line-up can afford to carry a ‘keeper who is batting like a rank tail ender. This is even more relevant given that, even as the Australia side has gone through a major resurgence, the batting of its top seven has remained a weakness.
Their tail often has been asked to rescue them from perilous situations and has had success in doing so.
Haddin has played his fair share of important rearguard actions during his commendable Test career. However, he no longer looks capable of playing the kind of responsible innings Australia require when they find themselves five-for-not-many.
Haddin himself seems to have given up on any idea of trying to play such digs and instead is trying to bludgeon his way back into form.
In the first innings of the second Test in Jamaica, Haddin arrived at the crease with Australia 5-264 and holding only a 44-run lead – hardly a dominant position. Yet he batted as though Australia were miles ahead in the game and charging towards a declaration.
Haddin threw the bat with abandon. He was dropped at backward point on eight after aiming a wild drive at a Kemar Roach delivery that deserved respect. Only a few balls later he again slashed at the ball, which flew just over the top of gully. He was not in control of either stroke.
Not perturbed by his two near-dismissals, Haddin just two balls later slogged a decent delivery over mid-off. A few minutes after that he very nearly chopped a Jerome Taylor delivery onto his stumps.
His luck ended soon after as he attempted yet another irresponsible heave and was clean bowled by Jerome Taylor. That ended a manic innings which in no way suited the circumstances.
At the other end, Steve Smith was building on his ton and needed Haddin to help construct a big partnership. Haddin had no interest in that.
The Australian selectors missed a trick by not offering Haddin a home swansong against India last summer.
They could used the tour of the Windies to blood fellow New South Welshmen Peter Nevill who, at 29 years old, is in the form of his life.
Over the past two Sheffield Shield seasons, Nevill has plundered 1236 runs at 56, including three centuries.
Significantly, Nevill is not a cavalier strokemaker in the mold of Haddin or Adam Gilchrist. Rather he is a grafting player who is happy to work long and hard for his runs. He is more BJ Watling than Jos Buttler.
Right now, this is the kind of ‘keeper-batsman which suits Australia. They have ample dynamic players in their top six and also in their tail, where the likes of Mitchell Johnson, Mitchell Starc and Ryan Harris love to attack.
At seven, they would be best served by someone who will place a lofty price on their wicket. Nevill does just that.
He should not be forced to wait too long for his Test debut. Unless Haddin has a miraculous reversal of fortunes in the Ashes that series should be his last for Australia.
The fact he recently retired from ODIs effectively immediately, but made no announcement about his Test plans, suggests he may be hoping for a home finale next summer. Australia cannot afford him such a luxury.
Nevill should get his opportunity on Australia’s Test tour of Bangladesh in October. It would be a perfect low-key debut for a new ‘keeper before the challenges of facing the fast-rising Kiwis in six Tests home and away next summer.
Haddin has been a great servant of Australian cricket. The Ashes shapes as an appropriate time for him to be farewelled.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
He's averaged 28 since his return to test cricket. He isn't picked for his batting (neither is Watson) and that will continue until he calls it a day.
deccas
Guest
Starc and Hazlewood were both selected off potential well before their performances justified it.
Bearfax
Guest
Agreed Ronan. If we're going to have an all rounder, Mitch Marsh looks the most likely proposition. We need to get him in now for the Ashes to give him a good grounding in the role. I suspect he's got the goods, but he needs a long stint. Drop Watson and bring in Mitch for the series and see how he fares. He's young and raw but he looks like he could be something special. Just needs to get those averages up and I think a stint in the Ashes will see that happen.
Don Freo
Guest
Mr O'Connell, you can captain my cricket team any time you like. That is Test cricket thinking.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Mitch Marsh has bowled 16 overs per Test in his career so far, I'd say that's a pretty solid workload. I agree with the point of having a strong 5th bowler - which is to keep your four frontliners fresh, not just within a session or a day or a Test or across a series but across the whole year. Keeping your best bowlers at their freshest is something that was neglected for many years and now teams recognise the value of this - it's why every single Test team now plays an all-rounder in their top six. For those 16 overs he bowls per Test Marsh is able to keep things super tight (he's conceded only 2.68rpo) so when the frontliners come back on the pressure they built in their last spell has not been released. Hand all of those 16 overs a Test over to the likes of Smith and Voges and much of that pressure which be released. Test cricket, most of the time, is not about bowling jaffas to get wickets. It's about connecting the dots until the pressure gets so intense on the batsman they lay a shot they shouldn't. Look at half of Hazlewood's wickets from the Windies tour - they weren't amazing deliveries but if you watched lived you saw the way he forced poor shots by over after over of giving the batsmen nothing. This is a similar role that the likes of Marsh and Watson have been tasked with doing - just bowl as dry as possible and help build up pressure until the batsmen burst. I know a lot of people argue that there's only need for four frontliners with the other 12-20 or so overs an innings to be taken up by Smith, Clarke and Voges (if he stays in the side). But the reality is Clarke, because of his back never bowls anymore unless he is desperate - he has averaged something like one over per match over his last 20 Tests. Smith is also a bit of a last resort - a partnership breaker really - because he bowls so many boundary balls. Smith goes for 4.33rpo at Test level which is incredibly expensive so you can't use him at any time when you're trying to build pressure (which realistically is 90%-plus of the time in Tests).
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Although, Ronan, I'd argue that if they are happy to just replace Watson's mid-30s average at #6, then they've missed the point. They really need more from that from their top-6 batsmen, and while Faulkner may be able to replicate Watson's ability to get scores between 20 and 95 regularly enough for a mid-30s average, I think that would be a bad choice. The main reason being how few overs Watson and Mitch Marsh really ended up bowling in tests over the last 12-18 months. On most occasions they only went to them for a handful of overs. I think that having 5 genuine bowlers in the team can possibly be helpful on the occasions when you have to bowl 150 overs in an innings, but the rest of the time it generally means at least one of those bowlers doesn't bowl much. Based on that, I don't think an allrounder who's only capable of averaging low-to-mid 30's with the bat batting in the top 6 would ever do enough with the ball to make up for it. Now, Faulkner may well be, as you suggest, the sort of person who just raises their game at international level and could come out and start scoring big hundreds batting at 6 for Australia and be a quality allrounder, but I think if we've got players like Voges, Clarke and Smith who between them could bowl 10 overs a day, tie up an end or break the odd partnership, I'd drop the idea of picking an allrounder at 6 and go with a pure batsman.
VivGilchrist
Guest
Don Freo, how are they sad and strange? Very unusual comment. You have such a heavy bias toward WA that your comments lose credibility. Sorry if I had offended you. I can see that you are very sensitive.
colinp
Guest
No need to bring him to England, he's a yorkie anyway and knows the motherland well....
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
How can you say he 'always' stands up? Since he's been back in the team he's averaged 28 with the bat. Johnson has probably averaged close to that.
JimmyB
Guest
Bit of a rant I know, but valid I think.
Nudge
Guest
"And breathe" classic Jimmy, interesting post too.
Don Freo
Guest
Your point? If you wish to argue someone's case, why not do it? Plenty on here do it. There is no rule that says WA players are not to be mentioned. Your comments are always so sad and strange. Do you like cricket?
VivGilchrist
Guest
Don Freo, let me guess... You want both Marshs in the XI and Agar to be the spinner. Why don't we make Langer the coach and start wearing yellow caps and play all our home games at the WACA?
VivGilchrist
Guest
Agree. Haddins batting relies on luck. He doesn't bat to the situation. He's reckless and he's out of form.
Nudge
Guest
Good post Jimmy. I was also referring to Ronans post about county cricket being not far behind shield cricket. I'm sure their is a lot of talent in div 2 county cricket, buts it's going to be a long way off shield cricket. When you consider their is only 66 players playing in a shield round, and 198 in a county round ( does county cricket have 18 teams?) that would make 180 English players (if each team has one international) playing in one round. So if we are generous and said Aus cricket and English cricket had the exact same amount of talent, that means that their would be 114 players playing county cricket each round that would only be grade cricketers in Australia. I'm now just wondering if this is why English cricket is way weaker than it should be. I wonder if they only had 8 county teams with just the best 77 English players playing (allowing for one international) whether that could make a big difference to the development of the elite English players.
Don Freo
Guest
Go back 3 series. What year was that? Now, what year is it now? Good boy! Get the direction I'm heading here?
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
If losing the last 3 Ashes tests in England is what you consider success, then yes, you are without hope. But you sure aren't short of arrogance...
BurgyGreen
Guest
@Joel I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's unfair to suggest that Faulkner's defensive technique is inferior to Marsh's from the available evidence. He's hardly had a chance to showcase his defence at ODI level, coming in at 7 or 8. I don't think he's a particularly unorthodox batsman, nor is he just a mindless slogger. There's surely plenty more to his game than we've seen in ODIs.
Quitwhinging
Guest
Handscomb was hitting form before he dropped for Klinger, scored about 4 or 5 50's in about 10 innings
JimmyB
Guest
Agreed, he frequently extinguished any glimmer of hope that opponents had of knocking Oz over cheaply. Gilly the Extinguisher!