“Just pick the best 11 players to win the next Test. Forget about their age or the future”.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard cricket fans make this short-sighted statement about the Australian Test team.
Admittedly, their argument is not completely illogical. There are times when you feel, in a particular Test, that were a country to have an in-form veteran in the side in place of a promising rookie, they would be better placed to win.
There are occasions when such a “pick your best XI regardless” selection policy could make sense. Late in a finely-balanced Ashes series, hypothetically, there could be merit in prioritising the now over planning and player development.
In such a scenario, it could make sense to narrow your focus and select a run-plundering old fellow to try to help get you over the line, before widening your vision once more and continuing to invest in youth.
But no side in the modern era of Test cricket has continually applied a selection philosophy of picking your 11 most in-form players. Why? Because form waxes and wanes so, suddenly, you would be churning through 20 to 30 Test players a year.
It might not fluster the true untouchables that most teams have – the likes of Steve Smith, AB De Villiers, and Joe Root. But imagine the effect it would have on the mindsets of the other members of the side, those who are not utterly dominant cricketers.
Each time they gave up a loose dismissal, dropped a catch or bowled a poor spell, chances are their mind would be swamped by doubt and anxiety. Even for mentally strong individuals, the idea that they were only ever one poor Test away from being replaced by the next bloke surely would gnaw away at their reserves of confidence.
By comparison, a player who is empowered by his coaches and captain – given a clear role and a mandate for a generous period of time – is more likely to shed some of their jitters and play in a natural, confident manner.
This is particularly relevant when considering younger players, those who have not yet experienced the full peaks and troughs of professional sport. These cricketers, not yet full formed but with immense talent and potential, need care and nurturing.
Whereas an accomplished veteran well into their 30s may have a better chance of making an immediate impact than these rookies, the older player also has significantly less upside and a limited shelf life.
During a rebuilding phase like Australia currently are in, the temptation is to load up on reliable old stagers. “Open with Ed Cowan, put Michael Klinger at 3, Adam Voges at 5 and a batsman, not an all-rounder at six, say Shaun Marsh.”
Now, that experienced batting order may win you a series. But it won’t last long and then you’ll be back where you started. Fortunately, Australia’s selectors so far have avoided this tempting strategy as they look to renovate the side in the wake of the retirements of Michael Clarke, Chris Rogers, Brad Haddin, Shane Watson and Ryan Harris.
Wisely, they have picked just one veteran batsman, Adam Voges, to add experience to the top six in the upcoming Tests against New Zealand. Without such a player, the batting order would be too green.
The selectors were wise to otherwise invest in the comparative youth and upside of Usman Khawaja and Joe Burns. Both players are young enough that they can potentially play for six-to-seven years, but old enough that they have honed their games and rebounded from periods of adversity.
In this way, the selectors are planning for the future without relying too heavily on youth. As I wrote on Monday, Khawaja and Burns deserve to be given an extended run in the side to properly assess whether they can be key building blocks of captain Steve Smith’s new side.
Smith and the selectors appear to be looking well into the future, ignoring the short-sighted approach of picking in-form veterans. Quick fixes are not what the Australia team needs if they are to build a dominant new side – a team which can develop and flourish together and become the undisputed kings of Test cricket.
If the veterans demanding to be picked were the quality of Darren Lehmann, Matthew Elliot and Stuart Law, who were the fringe players from the 1990s to early 2000s, it would be understandable that the selectors pick them ahead of rookies.
But, even the most ardent fans of players lie Cowan and Marsh must realise they never will be commanding Test players. The selectors seem to have acknowledged that and instead have picked Khawaja and Burns who still have the time to become quality international batsmen.
Australia, at last, appear to be investing in their future. It is a sage decision.
Top up. Take off
Win the ultimate Footy Weekend with Hostplus.
Simply contribute to your super for your future and go into the draw to win!
Big Tom Bumpkin
Guest
Zip yer yapper JW Shauny Marsh to make a big time score in south australia Wait n see bro they will win the series and then quarter spin after the series West Indies gunna be a good series, a series for pace bowlin and a bit of deep ttrench batting What do ya reckon boys?
JW
Guest
argh, another one of these articles that (a) thinks test cricket is all about the ashes and then wonders why its dying around the world. and (b) can't figure out if you had've pick all those young batsmen who averaged 35 in the shield then they likely would've averaged 30 in test cricket and we'd have lost every game. - a la cowan, khwaja, quiney, doolan, marsh, etc etc. which pretty much happened. the australian team's performances improved when they picked chris rogers, and they picked him years too late. guys like david hussey and brad hodge were also left on the side line and would've improved results. this isn't the AFL where rebuilding with a youth policy is sometimes necessary because there are a limited number of spots on your list to develop players. the shield is still there for players to develop their games. people act like because they're not playing for australia then they're not playing at all. yes they are playing - they're playing in the shield and not playing very well! i agree if there is nothing in it then go for the younger player over the older player. but we had a pretty weak generation of players where michael clarke was the standout, we went with the younger players and struggled. let them learn their trade in the shield and be picked when they are ready - like khawaja now. this isn't really going to be much of an issue now anyway because we dont really have many good older players left..and we finally have some decent talent coming through. hopefully they put some runs on the board in the shield....so we can actually see who the best players are, pick them, stick with them and try win every series.
scott
Guest
just another entitled New South Welshman you reckon?
danno
Guest
I agree, Maxwell at 27 years is a better option to rejuvenate the test team. FC average of 40, handy off spinner, quality fielder. He has a lot of upside than S Marsh. When Khawaja comes back in, Maxwell would be suited to 6 if M Marsh continues to struggle with the bat. There would be nervous opposition captains seeing Maxwell come out at 6, he can quickly take the game away from you if he was to bat a session or two. At present, M Marsh appears uncertain how he should play. I think he has a huge future but would like him to get more shield matches first and build on his low average.
The Bush
Roar Guru
People are too quick to judge Maxwell. He does his job and he's clearly instructed to play the way he does, when he does. You don't build an average over 40 in FC cricket, making him now the best young bat under 30 not in the side (other than Lynn) playing that way all the time. Maxwell would have been a much better choice. He's the right age, a better fielder and he can bowl (spin too, which is usually useful at Adelaide, even if it is the same way as Lyons).
World in Cricket
Guest
@ Keeffe - I agree with your point about Glen Maxwell - let's get him into the test squad as he's obviously VERY talented and needs the discipline of test match play to improve his game and become a fixture in the test XI - certainly a better option than S.Marsh
Big Tom Bumpkin
Guest
Currenlty, accept for Warner this current test XI is pretty boring Smith is a good bloke and Burns can score but Voges needs to b out at pasture Mitchy Marsh should be dropped vs West Indies and give Maxwell a run or maybee Klinger or Cowan? How about Bancroft? That bloke is yesterdays jam these days Who would ya pic for the west indies test starting on december 10th? Patto or O'Keefee in for pink ball test? I like em both but I herd O'keefee can be a bit of a snob in the locker rooms eh
Big Tom Bumpkin
Guest
If this article is true and good then where is Michael Frederick Klinger? Selectors have gone with the young bloke in Marsh who can make runs against easy guys Come on Aussie, pull up ya socks!
matth
Guest
I hope that no batsman has a black mark against his name if they fail in the pink ball test. Surely everyone gets a free pass for this one?
matth
Guest
Ronan, I hope you got a decent click bonus for that all time great article. Sure fire comment booster :-)
Joel
Roar Rookie
Have you ever sat and watched one of Maxwell's first class innings? It's all too easy to judge based on what you've seen him do in colored clothing whilst simultaneously overlooking his first class record.
Jameswm
Guest
Pick the best XI to win the test does not mean pick the most in form guys now. There's a balance between picking your best team to win a test and looking to the medium and long term future. Our selectors haven't been that great at getting that balance right.
madmonk
Guest
I remember mocking the Dave Warner selection for the same reason. Maxwell's test record is 2 tests in India and one in UAE against Pakistan. He has so much more upside than Shaun Marsh I would not have been disappointed if he had been given a chance.
Steele
Guest
Obviously a whole side of thirty five year olds isn't great. You need to be an exceptional player to break in at that age. Rogers and Voges are the recent examples. And the guys in their mid twenties are hopefully coming into their career peaks. Maxwell should of got a gig ahead of Marsh being younger and boasting similar numbers. And how long do you persist with the likes of Mitch Marsh? He's young so he's been given more time than the veterans get, (understandable), but at what point do you send him back to the shield?
Dom
Guest
Shaun Marsh shouldn't have been picked but he's still a safer option than Maxwell. Maxwell plays like a ridiculously talented 10-year-old, which suits us fine in limited overs games but means he so far has two Test sixes but no Test fifties to his name after six innings (early days I know, but getting out reverse sweeping early in a Test innings is not a great sign he has the mental game for Test cricket). He should get there eventually, but while pure talent has been enough for him at first class level (especially in the UK) he needs to show a lot more patience with the bat before getting another run in the Test side. Klinger would have been picked for two games (until Khawaja returned), is an experienced campaigner and has been in great form in recent seasons, so his overall career record spanning 160-odd games back to the 1990s hardly matters.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
Spot on. Everyone keeps raving about Klinger but forget he has a first class average of only 39. If it was 50+ then you could justify picking a 35 year old. His first class record is solid, nothing more or less. It's baffling that Shaun Marsh has been picked for this test. Why not Maxwell who has a better first class record and who at 27 could become a mainstay of the team once Voges retires. Provided Burns and Khawaja establish themselves over the next 12 months then when Voges retires we should be looking to whoever performs best out of Maxwell, Bancroft, Lynn or a young shield debutants such as Dean from Victoria or Hazlett from Qld assuming they can both continue their great start to first class cricket.