In the aftermath of the Trent Bridge disaster, Australian cricket followers seem to have fallen into two camps.
There are those that would be happy with nothing short of public hangings for the entire squad, along with the coaching staff, selectors and Cricket Australia board members.
In the other camp are those that believe you should support your team through think and thin, never say a bad word about them, and arm themselves with the opinion that it’s un-Australian to ‘bag’ the national team out or hold them accountable for their failings.
Of course, hyperbole aside, there are many that fall into neither camp, and simply want Australia to start winning Test matches again. However, it’s much more fun to concentrate on the opposite ends of the bell curve.
Yet regardless of where you sit, what is not up for debate is that the performance in the Fourth Test – with the series on the line – was not acceptable.
With the Ashes lost in extremely convincing fashion – considering there is still one Test to be played at The Oval – it’s time once again for Australian cricket to ask itself some hard questions.
More importantly, its time said questions were answered, and here are 35 that I would like to ask.
1. Honestly and sincerely, was Michael Clarke ‘pushed’?
2. If he wasn’t – and it was his own decision – was any effort made to stop him from retiring?
3. Do Australian batsmen consistently have trouble against a moving ball?
4. If so, what’s been done – and is being done – to overcome it?
5. Is there a reason why Australian cricket uses Kookaburra balls instead of Duke balls?
6. Does Australia have succession plans for players when they reach a certain age (say, over 32)?
7. Or is the strategy to simply replace veteran players, when they stop performing, with whomever else is in-form?
8. Can Australia realistically select Mitchell Johnson and Mitchell Starc in the same Test XI?
9. Given Shane Watson and Brad Haddin played just the one Test each, how close were they to not being selected for the tour at all?
10. If Brad Haddin wasn’t going to be dropped for the Second Test at Lord’s – as Michael Clarke suggested – then he must have been dropped for missing a Test due to family reasons, right?
11. Does such a decision fit into Australia’s alleged policy of putting family first?
12. Rod Marsh said it was an ‘amazingly hard call’ to drop Haddin, along with saying ‘there was no choice’. So, which is it? It can’t be both, can it? (OK, technically that was two questions).
13. Are the coaches and selectors happy to adopt the mantra of “that’s just the way he plays” with Dave Warner, or should he be expected to be, y’know, a Test batsman?
14. Do the powers-that-be have an unhealthy obsession with selecting an all-rounder?
15. Or did the dropping of Mitch Marsh signify an end to this irrational love affair?
16. What preparations – listed in detail – were undertaken for playing in English conditions?
17. Was Pat Cummins ever a realistic chance of playing a Test Match on this tour?
18. If yes, how the hell could that conclusion possibly be arrived at?
19. If no, why the hell was he picked?
20. Was Ian Healy out of line, or making an astute point, by blaming the WAGs for the series result?
21. With Chris Rogers retiring, Adam Voges (for the most part) looking out of his depth, Shaun Marsh doing Shaun Marsh things, and Michael Clarke calling time on his career, who are the next four batsmen in line for a call-up?
22. What impact, if any, has T20 cricket had on Australia’s Test batsmen?
23. How important is Sheffield Shield cricket, and is it given the level of respect and attention needed to blood a successful Test side?
24. Individually broken down, how much money does each form of cricket/competition earn Cricket Australia? (ie: Tests versus ODI versus International T20 versus BBL, etc.)
25. Does the amount of revenue each of the competitions generate, accurately reflect the level of importance to Cricket Australia?
26. Would it please be possible to outlaw the saying ‘play your natural game’ if a player’s natural game is horrible and not one suited to success at Test cricket?
27. Would you ever consider something crazy like a rule that states if a batsman averages less than 30 over 10 or more consecutive Tests, he’s automatically dropped, with no selector input required?
28. Given his impressive first-class record, why wasn’t Brad Hodge selected? (Yes, I admit, that one was just to make sure you’re all still awake and reading).
29. Does Australia always and unapologetically have to play ‘aggressive cricket’, irrespective of the match situation, or is there some leeway for playing ‘sensible cricket’?
30. What are Greg Blewett’s credentials to be Australia’s fielding coach?
31. Why was Blewett given a three-year contract, yet his predecessor, the highly rated, respected and experienced Mike Young, only on short-term, part-time deals?
32. What are Michael Di Venuto’s credentials to be Australia’s batting coach?
33. What KPI’s does Di Venuto have as Australia’s batting coach?
34. Remember the Argus Review, or whatever it was bloody called? Another one might be needed. I know I’m not meant to answer these questions, but just a thought.
35. Is it possible that sometimes a ‘bad tour’ just happens, and there is no need to panic or overreact?
So there you have it, 35 questions that I would like to ask Cricket Australia. There may be a few I’ve missed, and that Roarers would like to add, so please, feel free to fire away.
Given the series loss, I think it would be a very prudent exercise for Australian cricket to undertake.
peter chrisp
Guest
I am with you on Healy, his support, attitude and commentating was the worst i have ever heard, everytime an Aussie got dismissed he should have done this oh he should have done that, no no that's not the way to play the ball, he should have moved his feet, so i am with you Allanthus, and being an Aussie his comments throughout the whole series were quite annoying, if we had off won the series would it have been a different story, i must admit most times i enjoyed David Lloyds summary & Michael Vaughans thoughts and ideas as the series drawers to a conclusion, and they're sense of humour, and i am with you Stucco his commentating was that one eyed he very rarely gave credit to the Pommies/English side for winning the series
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
The Aus selectors aren't much better. They want instant returns or they dump young players. So many Aus caps have been given away in the past few years, it's embarrassing.
Don Freo
Guest
23. That's because most sporting journalists don't follow sport. They are only interested in off field gossip. If Ashton Agar had a nightclub dalliance with Iggy Azalea, they'd be all over it.
Don Freo
Guest
Now you're talking. Damo could still be playing. Bring him back as captain.
Don Freo
Guest
That would be to strengthen cricket in England, Jimmy. Seems to have worked well.
Don Freo
Guest
Maybe Oz could enter its own Institute side into the County comp.
Don Freo
Guest
The whole Haddin thing...Haddin would have come back apart from the fact that Nevill did better than Haddin had been doing for a long time. Until Nevill played, Haddin was going to be picked. Once Nevill played, it was clear he was the better option. There's not much mystery or intrigue in that one. Nevill just took his opportunity.
Rellum
Roar Guru
When you are an all time great team like the Windies and the Warnie era Aussie team then you can afford to be very attacking. When you are not you have to par that back, earn the right to be on top and attack.
Rellum
Roar Guru
It is up to us the current and once removed generations to pass on the game to the younger generation. People used to care greatly about the comp even though they never watched it. Have the Test players back for the first 3 rounds at least and spend a small amount of the marketing money to get media organisations to drum up a little rivalry. They don't have to give up their love child but it is important cricket fans know that their Shield team is in a contest than means something.
Glenn Innes
Guest
Question 29 is interesting.When did this myth that Australia has always played 'attacking' cricket come from,?it must be people who have only watched Australian cricket since the late nineties. If you go back a bit further then I would say the West Indies always had an attack based philosophy, pragmatic is how I would have described the Australian philosophy. Things like hitting on the up not getting your foot to the pitch of the ball were West Indian methods not Australian methods, Down here there was always a strong emphasis on a tight technique, certainly was when I was playing junior cricket back in the early seventies Not saying attacking cricket is not the way to play, just noting that it is a modern urban myth that Australia has always played that way. You were taught to bat the classical way and expected to bat that way and if you got out playing otherwise you copped one hell of a spray..
Matt from Armidale
Guest
+1
NTJ
Guest
Regarding 14 and 15, I have two main points: 1. I feel this obsession is due to what has happened in the past regarding the front-line bowlers breaking down. If there had not been a recent history of our bowlers breaking down, I feel this obsession for a 'back-up' of sorts would not exist. 2. Naturally, if an all-rounder is picked, we want that player to make an impact in some area of the game. I feel a player specifically tagged as an all-rounder needs to excel in either batting or bowling to maximize this impact (i.e. batting all-rounder, bowling all-rounder). It is probably because of this reasoning I am not a fan of Mitch Marsh - despite some tour tons and a few wickets at Lords, his other test displays show me he is caught between being a batsman and bowler. IMO a player like that won't have the impact other all-rounders can/have had.
Bovs
Guest
In terms of the ability to 'bat ugly' I don't think it's fair to blame any single player (except maybe Michael Clarke who's been around long enough that he should have been able to pick up this ability). Warner and Smith are naturally aggressive, Rogers has largely done his job and the Marsh boys and Voges probably haven't had the test cricket exposure to be expected to save a team from collapse. What really needs to be looked at is selection and future-planning... anyone could say that Warner, Smith and Marsh are going to be prone to getting out in difficult conditions... so have one as opener and then the other two comiing in at 3 and 4 seems mad. Even if Rogers and Clarke had done what was required and survived that first morning, we would've still been 3-for-not-much. More importantly, selectors should reflect on how we ended up with a batting mix of older players with not many tests (SMarsh, Voges, Rogers), out-of-form veterans (Clarke, Haddin, Watson), 1 young allrounder (MMarsh) and just two reliable and proven test players (Warner and Smith) in the squad. For me, the squad was clearly lacking 2 quality and established test batsmen. This is partly due to the Phil Hughes tragedy, but also partly due to selectors persisting with Ponting and Watson despite poor form while chewing through Doolan, Maxwell, Henriques, Bailey, Cowan, Khawaja, Burns and SMarsh without ever letting any of them become an established part of the team. Had they picked one (say Burns ot... if you go back historically... Brad Hodge) and given them a big dose of test cricket, suddenly you've got a far less shaky looking top order. I don't think a Warner; Rogers; Hodge; Smith; Clarke; Hughes top order for example would've collapsed in the same way.
The Bush
Roar Guru
This the Warner who got a century in the UAE and centuries in South Africa to be a vital part of that away series win? Yeah, bloke is hopeless outside Australia...
Armchair Expert
Guest
Correct Pope, it was an even bigger crime selecting Bailey for test cricket in the first place seeing he averaged 18 in the previous shield season, when he was selected for tests he benefitted from the selectors' and Clarke's obsession with "keeping the group together". You forgot to mention Beer and Doherty, who both got 2 separate chances in tests despite only having a handful of recent shield wickets.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Correct James, apparently Dizzy has had a lot to do with Johnny Bairstow's career best batting for Yorkshire.
Mark Angus
Roar Rookie
Another question for the list is: "Did the selectors at any stage consider picking Michael Klinger, one of Australia's most accomplished batsmen in English conditions?" And of course, the follow up, "If not, why not?"
Spruce moose
Guest
Warner will ever win you a game outside australia. He is seriously limited on pitches that aren't flat.
ChrisB
Guest
I'm sorry mate, I feel your pain and wish it were so, but the simple fact is we need T20 to: A) attract kids to cricket B) provide a career path for more players - will hopefully reduce some of the loss of talent to other sports with more professional opportunities C) give a degree of independence from the Indians You can't seriously believe money of less important? Also, realistically shouldn't all countries be feeling the T20 effect on suing styles? Why would it only be Australia? We don't exist in a bubble. It may just be a cyclical effect
ChrisB
Guest
You can't make people care. How are you going to make non-cricket fans or kids grown up in the BBL care about Unwatched Shield games?