Debate has started, led by Ricky Ponting, concerning the future of Australia’s failed Test cricket team.
In total 18 players were selected, and at the end of the tour we can only say with certainty that eight of them – 44 per cent of the squad – will play Tests again.
Michael Clarke, Brad Haddin, Chris Rogers, Adam Voges, Shane Watson and Ryan Harris are done.
Voges could arguably get over the line if he has a big score at The Oval, but given the disastrous nature of the tour and the need to forge a new era he is good as gone.
If we add to the list the ‘unlikely’ cohort of Shaun Marsh, Peter Siddle and Fawad Ahmed, we are up to nine.
Ahmed could have a case and might even play at The Oval, but at 33 and no Test career to date he is an unlikely long-term option.
Marsh could consider himself unlucky and arguably should have been tried earlier, but a sketchy and stop/start career combined with his age is against him.
Which leaves us with Siddle, not tried on the tour, pace down and clearly not held in high regard by Darren Lehmann, combined with other younger options waiting in the wings.
Then there is Pat Cummins. With no red-ball form for a long time, and arguably still on the recovery road, it wouldn’t surprise if other young guns usurp him.
That leaves Australia with only Steve Smith, David Warner, Josh Hazlewood, Mitchell Johnson, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Marsh, Peter Nevill, and Mitchell Starc.
The tour has been a total nightmare, akin to England’s dismal tour of Australian in 2013-14, where more than half-a-dozen careers were put to bed, with more left on the outer.
However this situation was always beckoning for Australia.
Win, lose or draw Clarke was bound to retire. Watson was under pressure and likely to go as well. Harris and his knees were always vulnerable, Siddle was on the outer, and Rogers had already announced his retirement.
Add to that Voges being a horses for courses selection with age against him, Shaun Marsh needing a harvest of runs to survive, Haddin in the twilight, Ahmed yet to be tried and Cummins not initially selected.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Watto has said quite clearly that he has not retired and he still wants to win his spot back in the side, so unless the selectors stick to their guns, he could well be back one day...
adam
Guest
going on current figures, with both smith & warner failing- the only reliable bloke in the team is lyon. captain material? yes! he can even roll the pitch having been a groundsman...
Timmuh
Roar Guru
"That leaves Australia with only Steve Smith, David Warner, Josh Hazlewood, Mitchell Johnson, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Marsh, Peter Nevill, and Mitchell Starc." Unless Starc gains more control he and Johnson should never be in the same team again. Warner really only should get a gig outside Australia by default. As soon as any other opener can do a job, Warner should be home-only (and maybe in Sth Africa). Mitchell Marsh, only so long as the no-rounder obsession continues. Even then, watch for the selectors to return to Watson. LBW for 15 to 30 is better than most of the batsmen have been doing in the last two Tests. Smith and Lyon are probably the only two secure ones. And Lyon could come under pressure.
Pumping Dougie
Roar Guru
I can't comprehend why the selectors went into the 4th test without Mitch Marsh and an allrounder. Sure, he failed with the bat in the previous two tests, but his other track record in tests (in the United Emirates) was good and his form in the lead-up games in England was exceptional. Why wouldn't they persist with such a talented bloke who was bowling well, fields well, has youth on his side and offers so much potential to influence a game, instead of Voges who had failed comprehensively in the first 3 tests? It made no sense at all. Just a really dumb decision. I agree with Slim that Marsh, Faulkner and Maxwell should all be in contention for a test spot at the expense of Voges, Clarke and Shaun Marsh - not so convinced about Agar yet (Lyon is doing a reasonable job).
Slim
Guest
Lets also consider along with M Marsh at no. 6, J Faulkner, G Maxwell and A Agar. All good options.
Matt From Pony Land
Roar Rookie
Yeah, I would bat him at 3 at the Oval. He's always good for a century in a dead rubber match. His style of batting and lack of footwork meant he was always going to fail as a lower order batsman.
blanco
Guest
Boy some people are living in a fantasy world.Watson averages in the 30's. There's a reason why he got dropped. Lack of output. So for him to get back in the teams means he has to score heaps at domestic level or odi's, surely, and even then i'd not consider him. The future is now and Mitch Marsh is that future.
Larney
Guest
No he hasn't. And that's a good question. I thought that myself. I'd like to see him play at The Oval as the last time he was there he got 176.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Has Shane Watson retired? Why is everyone so sure he is gone from test cricket?