David Warner and Joe Burns bat and bat and bat. Usman Khawaja bats, and bats, and bats. Steve Smith bats, and bats, and bats. Then Adam Voges bats, and bats, and bats.
And when that happens, as it did at Brisbane and Perth, Mitchell Marsh’s suitability as a number six batsman becomes an irrelevance. His potential faults were protected. He could be a hitter.
If he succeeded, that was a nice cherry on top. If he didn’t, who cared? No one, unless pad rash prevented him bowling.
There are five other people behind Mitchell Marsh in the Australian batting order who can hit a cricket ball high and long. Maybe not as well or as often, but the probability is that someone will hit a few sixes at some point, or stay around while a batsman does.
Mark Craig has come in for a parade of criticism so big that it could gridlock the streets of Sydney. His performances have triggered memories of Richard Dawson’s trials in Australia.
Nathan Lyon, his opposite number, is about the only Australian who has defended him in the media. And by default, Lyon is about the only Australian who has defended him, in the media, or bars, or family homes, or anywhere.
His faults have been ruthlessly exposed by Australian batsmen and pitches that purport to be Australian. But this has been accentuated by the failures of his other bowlers.
Tim Southee and Trent Boult haven’t taken regular wickets with the new ball.
Doug Bracewell has actually been decent, but hasn’t been able to rip through Australia on his own. Matt Henry brought back memories of Shane Bond, except the fact that he isn’t Shane Bond in speed or accuracy. And their captain has kept on losing that damn toss.
Ravi Ashwin was the one consistently dangerous bowler India had to combat Australia’s top order last summer. But he had accuracy, spin, loop and bounce. He had prior experience of Australia.
Craig had no previous experience of Australia before this tour. Craig can spin it, but he’s just a bit loose in general and lacks the necessary overspin. The result was predictable. Craig does deserve criticism, but it’s hard to blame him for not being Daniel Vettori.
Whether or not New Zealand’s faith in him is misplaced, it is admirable, and not repeating the same mistakes Australia made post-Warne. And Craig bounced back with the rest of the New Zealanders when behind in the UAE and England.
Mitchell Marsh has been in difficult positions before in Test cricket. He will be again at some point, positions that parallel the predicaments Craig faced at Brisbane and Perth.
He’ll be there by a mixture of Australian batsmen, opposition bowlers and fielders and pitches, either actually Australian or formerly Australian, or pitches that are in another country.
Of course, the timing is not yet known. Will it be in Adelaide? Will it be the comeback that the 2013 English team were supposed to pull off?
After all, Mitchell Johnson was a primary reason that comeback never eventuated. There were others. England’s fielding turned to cactus, with the exception of a Graeme Swann beauty to dismiss George Bailey.
One of the hardest things to do in cricket is to keep fielding standards up during long hours in the field. I’ve watched New Zealand in the field carefully this series. They’ve stayed up virtually the whole time, minus a couple of fumbles from BJ Watling.
Every time there’s been an errant throw, I’ve perked up; waiting to see if that was the moment that it started New Zealand’s complete disintegration.
But they haven’t given up. The dives continued. The throwing standard went back to normal. Catches, on the rare occasions they have been provided, have been taken. New Zealand has been by far the better team in the field.
By contrast, Australia’s inexperience has best been shown in the field. It takes time to grow a team as a fielding side, to build skills up in specific positions such as short-leg.
Ross Taylor was dropped at Perth. It was too late to prevent a century, but it would have prevented 290 and that Mitchell Starc spell was Australia’s last real chance of victory.
If one were asked to predict which team will drop a match-defining catch in Adelaide, one could only say Australia.
But another thing has changed between Perth and Adelaide. Johnson’s retirement weakens Australia. That English side had faced bad Johnson with all the certainty in the world. They generally faced the good version in 2013-14 with all the confidence of batsmen whose only defence was the irreparably broken USB that contained the way on how to play him.
Johnson had passed his prime. But he will go down as someone who fought back from his biggest lows. New Zealand’s batsmen might have been confident against him at Adelaide, but they would have respected him. Extra grass on the pitch might have sparked him up, though that will never be known.
His immediate replacement will most likely be Peter Siddle. A bowler worthy of any Test batsman’s respect, but without the fear factor that defined Johnson.
Siddle will be playing his second Test this year, if he plays. If he plays. It would only be natural for him to feel insecure.
Insecurity is a doubled edged sword as a motivator of cricketers. It could bring out the best in Siddle, as it did at The Oval, or the worst. He could be let down by his fellow bowlers, or his fielders. He could come off second-best against one of New Zealand’s undoubtedly Test-class batsmen.
Like Marsh, Siddle has faced difficult positions before. He’s succeeded on many occasions. He’ll face difficult positions again.
The first Australia has been shown so far this summer – the one that is comfortable at home, been able to expose the opposition’s shortcomings. But the last Ashes prove there is a second Australia.
While Australia will be playing at home in Adelaide, there is the difference of it being the first day-night Test, plus slow but sure signs of New Zealand worming their way into the series.
New Zealand hasn’t gone through Australia’s batting line-up yet. But their last effort, the second innings at Perth, is their best to date. Australia’s capacity to bat and bat and bat is tested through Usman Khawaja’s injury. Shaun Marsh can also bat and bat and bat, but he’s entering last chance saloon and fans who will give almost as less rope as what Adam Voges will receive when he goes through a rough trot because of his age.
New Zealand squared series in the UAE and England through last-Test comebacks.
And they will know this. Australia’s batsmen are capable enough to bat, and bat, and bat on flat pitches.
But two Tests may have been long enough for New Zealand’s bowlers to find something approaching their best. And their best is enough to stop Australia from batting, and batting, and batting until Steve Smith ends the pain.
Enough to expose the second Australia. Enough to square the series.
Joel
Roar Rookie
"Cricket is not the only sporting contest being manipulated and ruined and with its heart being sucked out by greedy Networks..." Sigh. Yes, networks are greedy and it's all about money... But that money comes from advertising revenue rather than from our own pockets. If you take away the advertising, the networks, the ability for TV to make money out of a broadcast then you take away the ability for anyone to witness the sporting spectacle. Complain all you want but without all the ad's and the networks and the money blah blah blah there is no sport to watch.
Don Freo
Guest
Because it is not an issue and won't be considered by anyone.
Fox
Guest
Where is the Players Associations voice? Why are they not now screaming No To Four Day Test Matches - because the pay off for the players is too good - they to, have lost sight of the integrity of the game - do not kid yourself. The Business of Sport is now about Big Business not the games themselves Cricket is not the only sporting contest being manipulated and ruined and with its heart being sucked out by greedy Networks and governing bodies trying to create Advertising Designer Sports Games with rule changes and games changes whose one agenda is to attain more advertising bucks and to hell with anything else
Fox
Guest
"Johnson’s retirement may actually benefit Australia. He’d been in poor form for a while and, if not for his long service and reputation, would probably have lost his place by now anyway. " Your are right Ronan - absolutely - but I feel sadly that he got out at the right time with soft balls being suspiciously produced and with Channel 9 commentators churning out the cliched and unconvincing yet again "bad batch" theory.. Bad batch my ass...sorry how long has Kookaburra been making cricket balls? And suddenly as TV pressure mounts to ensure the game goes five days we get a "soft ball" bad batch..total and utter BS Now we get the NET-PITCH designed to become lame and flat as soon as possible - often from ball one and no spin So now the Networks want 4 day games and yes it is pressure from them...and crowds stop turning up when you make sure the contest between bat and ball is no longer balanced...and this has been going on for some time unless the ball swings which they cannot control ..but hey soft balls sure counter that a bit do they it not.? The networks and the money grubbing players associations and the cricketing bodies who cower to both have a lot to answer for We are in a transition period where test cricket is moving towards a place where it is no longer recognizable - and as for turning into a 4 day game - in other words make it another Short-form - shorter game - that is cricket blasphemy...i It is bad enough the entire game will be changed with day night games - NET- PITCHES and soft balls - which the last two are a disgrace - and now its next move is to shorten the game Good bye most double centuries and forget tipples...spin Bowlers will be nothing more than batsmen who can turn a ball with rare exceptions except maybe the subcontinent. What the networks are trying to do is obvious - a four day test match will become effectively 4 innings of about 80 overs because time will be wasted Why don't they cut to the chase and have a day night two innings of 50 overs each...an extended 50 over game and be done with it? Lets turn test cricket into glorified ODI games - why not? it is where we are heading and the networks don't give a toss about the integrity of the game Note Mark Taylor and the Chappels are advocating four day test matches -= gee wouldn't have anything to do with their strong connection with the Network channel 9 now would it people? And others on the pay roll will follow and watch for the push for his in the commentary of the next test match from Channel 9 and Taylor and co with the odd disagreement thrown in to make sound like the other side is heard but of course shot down..that is how the game is played on TV Opinion that comes from People who work for the networks is paid for opinion and that include x-players on the big a pay roll so take it with grain of salt Yes Ronan - Johnston's time was up but so to is test cricket as it should be and as we know it - he chose a good time to get out --- NET-CRICKET is all we will get now...and all the dirty tricks they use to keep their advertising bucks and sponsors satisfied and the Cricketing bodies and players I hate to say - are all along for money train ride
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
I'm not Shaun Marsh's biggest fan (I would have promoted Maxwell to the side) but considering he scored a century on debut in Sri Lanka at number 3 wondering whether Shaun Marsh is "too chicken little to give it a bash" at 3 seems incredibly harsh, even if he struggled mightily in most innings in that position after that innings. I reckon Smith might bat himself at 3, but it is a toss of the coin. As for Pattinson, I wouldn't be surprised if both he and Siddle play and Hazlewood is given a rest.
Big Tom Bumpkin
Guest
Oi Johnny , who said that Patto is playin mate? I reckon Siddsy should be given the pink cherry first up mate and let em roll like nine'pins whatdo ya blokes reckon? Get em in early and skittle em rough Is Smith locked in to bat at 3? Shaun Mash too chicken little to give it a bash?
Johnny Boy Jnr
Guest
I would love to see these two sides going at it with an injury free squad on a lively pitch. Boult, Henry and Southee vs Starc, Cummins and Pattinson If we can't have all of the players now at least we can have the pitch !!!
Pottsy
Guest
Thanks for the feedback Chris - I'll take it on board.
Joel
Roar Rookie
"No swing bowlers for Australia" ...except Mitchell Starc. And James Pattinson assuming he plays.
Republican
Guest
No swing bowlers for Australia and poor replacement in Marsh with the bat make NZ faves - for my money.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
This article was a bit all over the place. Hard to really see what you are getting at. Almost like you had too many points you wanted to raise and just jumped between things without really making much of a point.
Cheese
Guest
Just touching on the spin options available for NZ what i find hard to understand is the omission of late blooming leg spinner Todd Astle. His last two years of first class cricket he has taken 81 wickets @26.8 and his last match vs Sri Lanka A in October he took 11 wickets. Really impressive stuff especially on NZ wickets that tend to be suited much more for pace swing bowling and tend to deteriorate less. Started off his career as a mediocre batsmen that slowly took up spin bowling and now at the age of 29 has really got the hang of it. Played one test in 2012 and was cast aside after only taking 1 wicket which is not particular fair for any player just starting out.
Joel
Roar Rookie
There are two things I've noticed in the last two matches. The first is that Hazlewood doesn't seem to be bowling to any particular plan for any batsman and I think he's trying too hard to just bowl the same ball over and over. If Siddle plays we'll see much the same. The second is that Steve Smith tends to fall back to a standard field and wait for something to happen when there's not much going on. I'm really glad Pattinson is coming back into the frame, it means we have at least one bowler that can make life uncomfortable with a short fast spell when the swing disappears and make something happen. I would love to see how Kane Williamson would respond to spell like that, we haven't seen one yet in this series.
Lancey5times
Guest
Couldn't agree more Ronan and this is with the utmost respect to MJ. Smith will find life a hell of a lot easier with 2 right armers and his capacity to get the best out of Starc and Lyon will improve I believe.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
The wickets were flat though. Hazlewood may be rested.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
I admit I am not a fan of Steve Smith at no.3, but I don't think that the "other Australia", i.e. the one that is prone to collapses, is about to be shown up. The top order is solid even without Khawaja. Certainly I think the middle order of the two Marshes and Nevill is a bit soft, but if a top order collapse is imminent they get their chance to prove their worth.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Johnson's retirement may actually benefit Australia. He'd been in poor form for a while and, if not for his long service and reputation, would probably have lost his place by now anyway. Then there's also the fact that Australia's attack didn't look well balanced with both he and Starc in it. Johnson's past 7 Tests he averaged 40 with the ball and the real killer was that he went at 4rpo in those matches. He was meant to be the leader of the attack but instead his waywardness made things harder for Starc, Lyon and Hazlewood.