Hurrah! Let waves of joy sweep over this cricket-loving nation, because finally a group of selectors have adopted a clear-headed approach.
Eschewed are the old methods of selection that resulted in a batting order with a spine as firm as the silken tofu in Peter Siddle’s lunch box; today the team is bravely studded with a mix of youth and stability.
Hopefully the cricketing hierarchy will ensure that those entrusted with the much treasured but hitherto lightly distributed baggy green – the proud symbol that has been handed out as nonchalantly as one might give away business cards – are made aware of what is required of them.
Should this brave but risky new direction fail to bring the desired results, our selectors ought to explain clearly why players are being discarded and what they need to do to return.
It probably won’t happen, though.
One could be forgiven for thinking that with the exit of Rod Marsh a new era of selection practices would dawn, and indeed it would appear so given the new-look team – but those decisions were likely made before Marsh’s exit, brought about by the disgrace known as the second Test in Hobart.
Even if this isn’t the case, the selection panel of today bears striking resemblance to the selection panel of last week given the only difference is Marsh’s absence. So despite what appears to be an exciting era of selections based on youth and promise, it is now apparent that we will dish up the same bizarre and inexplicable selection decisions we have become accustomed to.
Case in point: Joe Mennie.
Much has already been said about the bizarre circumstances surrounding the exclusion of poor Joe. Three players were not required to return to Sheffield Shield cricket following the Hobart Test: Mitch Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Mennie, but logic should have dictated that Joe’s place in the Test team was safe if one used deductive reasoning as follows:
All players not required for shield cricket following the self-immolation of the Australian cricket team in Hobart will not get a chance to press their claims for the Adelaide Test; players not given a chance to press their claims for the Adelaide Test do not need to because they are safe; Joe Mennie was not required to play shield cricket; therefore Joe Mennie is safe.
That said, the national selection panel and logic have had a strained relationship for some time. I repeat: Joe Mennie.
Between the severe embarrassment in Perth and the second Test in Hobart the selection panel made two changes: Callum Ferguson for Mitch Marsh to strengthen the batting line up and Joe Mennie for Peter Siddle to, uh, strengthen the batting line up.
The decision to bring in Ferguson, though questionable, was logically sound – the batting was weak, Ferguson has performed well in shield in the past three years, and Mitch Marsh has made no significant impact with neither bat nor ball.
The decision to bring in Mennie was something else. Joe may be a decent shield bowler, but his returns in the ODI series in South Africa were disappointing to say the least.
When the selectors should have opted for Jackson Bird with his Test experience and on his home track they instead plumped for Joe because of his better batting record – and of course those ten runs in Hobart in the first innings made all the difference!
In fact the difference between Mennie’s and Bird’s batting averages in first class cricket is about seven runs – so, yes, Joe appears to be a better batsman. However, the difference in their bowling averages at first-class level shows that for every ten wickets Bird gives away 246.3 runs whereas Joe gives away 272.4 runs.
Effectively the panel’s decision was to buy seven runs and give the opposition a 26-run head start in the process.
One can only imagine the discussion amongst the selectors over the past few months.
From, “Hi Joe, we’d like you to come to South Africa on the ODI tour,” to, “Bad luck about the ODI tour, but we’d like you to come to Hobart for the second test. Don’t forget your batting gear!”.
Then, “Hi Joe, don’t worry about Hobart, it was a batting issue. Mitch and Josh are rested from the shield round and we think you should too. See you in Adelaide,” to “So what about Joe? Well, he let us down with the bat in Hobart. Jackson Bird made a good thirty odd in shield, though,” and finally, “Sorry, Joe, you’re out. You probably should’ve played shield”.
Though I may seem to be saying Joe wasn’t good enough for selection, this is not a criticism of him – the real issue here is how the selectors have handled the entire Joe Mennie issue.
Time will tell whether the new look Test team can restore some pride in the baggy green, but whether the selection panel can restore some pride in whatever headwear it is that they favour is a question probably best left to Joe Mennie, on a seven second delay.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Bird was also a good performer in the New Zealand test series and logically should have been ahead of Mennie regarding selection for Hobart. Bird's shield season last year was returning from injury and his bowling average was superior to everyone. Mennie certainly deserved his name in the mix but well behind Bird. Now it seems Sayers has leap-frogged him too.
Basil
Guest
Simple equation... Out of Sayers, Bird, and Lyon, pick the 2 most threatening for a D/N Test using a pink ball at Adelaide Oval. Im pretty sure Sayers should be one of those 2. The only "half" logical reason I can think of Maddinson getting in is that they are contemplating going in with 4 pacemen with Nic as a spin option if need be.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Sayers is just too undeniable??? Look, I think he's a great bowler who thoroughly deserves the chance (if he gets it) but the idea that he his clearly preferable to Bird is silly. This will be a very tight call and the selectors might be keen to go with a known quantity in bird, given the inexperience in the side.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I actually agree that the obsession with out-and-out pace is a mistake. Imagine what that view could have done to McGrath's career? But I do think you need to be regularly pushing 135km/h to trouble international batsmen. The exceptions are freaks like Philander, who can hit the same line and length over and over, while also moving the ball both ways in the air and off the seam. Maybe Sayers can do that. If they go with 4 pacemen in Adelaide we will find out.
Chris Owens
Roar Rookie
This seems like a pointless argument to continue, because everyone will have different opinions about who should be selected, but what you say is not supported by facts. The last Shield season finished in March, so from 8 months (not a year) ago Bird had the better record. If we are talking RECENT form, Bird has 13 wickets from 3 Shield games and Mennie has 6 from 2. Finally we can't compare the A games, because Bird did not play against South Africa A and Mennie did not play against India A, even though in terms of wickets taken in each series Mennie had a superior record. But based on all recent form, and Bird's test record, the stats supported his selection, not Mennie's. And let's not forget that a reason given for Mennie's selection in Hobart was batting. As to watching each to see who the better bowler is, that is purely subjective.
dan ced
Guest
That means that Bird's performance in the shield is against the same weak batting stocks.. if you aren't picked for AUS you don't get that chance. Our bowlers, bar Lyon, bowled quite well in Hobart.. we just didn't have a Philander, add aforementioned batting issues. I think the only way Bird will play this test is if Lyon doesn't. Sayers is just too undeniable, especially in Adelaide.
dan ced
Guest
All you have to do is watch the two bowlers to see that Mennie is the better bowler. Bird CAN look better, Bird CAN take more wickets than Mennie.. but why would you select him on form from a year ago? They wanted a standard seam bowler, Bird is more of a swinger, and Mennie had a bigger body of RECENT form. At the end of the day I was going to leave out Mennie for Sayers, and Lyon for O'Keefe in my own squad (and drop Maddinson back to grade cricket) so I'm not going to argue too hard.
Basil
Guest
Your opinion.
Chris Owens
Roar Rookie
Jackson Bird played fewer Shield games last year than Mennie, so he took fewer wickets, but he had a better average and an appreciably better strike rate. As did Doug Bollinger and other bowlers. So Mennie had a good season, but let's not get carried away. He was by no means screaming out 'pick me'. Jackson Bird is clearly a superior bowler and should have been ahead of Mennie.
Basil
Guest
Too be honest JamesH, I would rather Sayers. I really hopes he plays this week. His swing, control, and stamina would be a great asset to the bowling lineup and will compliment Starcs fire, and Hazlewoods seam and bounce beautifully. It would be a very well rounded attack if they went this way. I think an attack like this would get the most out of the changes in pitches and atmospheric conditions experienced throughout a Test match as they would have all bases covered. OKeefe at no 8 wouldn't hurt either. Im one of those weird Aussie supporters that doesn't believe that 3 "balls and all" super fast bowlers is the answer far all conditions.
Basil
Guest
You are kidding me, aren't you? You can only play against the opposition thats infront of you. he also took 12 wickets in 2 games vs South Africa A batsmen. So we shouldn't pick Hancombe as he is batting against weak bowling stocks?
Basil
Guest
So if we don't select on a great domestic season or an exceptional A series, how do we get debutants into the team? Do we rely on a Nic Maddinson style "hunch" which is neither based on form or performance?
Bob
Guest
To be fair, Mennie's performance at Shield level comes against very weak batting stock. Better bowlers would probably never get an edge because the batsmen aren't good enough. Mennie has just the right straigtness to take wickets against people who can't bat.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I thought I might find a comment from you at the bottom of this article, Basil ;) People aren't bashing the selectors for considering Mennie - he had a great season and performed for the A side. It was the logic of picking him over Bird that people took issue with (particularly when the explanation related to his batting). Bird arguably had an even better season and only missed the A series because he toured Sri Lanka with the test team. I wanted Mennie to succeed in Hobart, tho. Watching him and the other bowlers toil away trying to defend 85 was tough. I agree that he has been unfairly treated by the selectors and I hope he goes back to the Shield and presses his case again. Ditto for Ferguson, who must be wondering how in the world Maddinson pinched his spot.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
I agree he shouldn't have been picked in the first place and I definitely agree that it was ridiculous that he was rested from a shield game so he was fresh for a test match that he doesn't get selected in. Ludicrous.
Chris Owens
Roar Rookie
To be fair to Joe you're right in that he was one of the better Shield bowlers going around. And of course Hobart was hardly his fault. But I can't accept that he should have been selected for Perth or Hobart either. He may have had a good season last year and A tour, but one good summer does not a fast bowler make the and ODI series in South Africa was a strong indication he would struggle. But, to be fair to me, the article is bashing the selectors for the way they treated Joe, not just for selecting him for Hobart in the first place.
Chris Owens
Roar Rookie
Oddly, the injury story seems only to have surfaced after he was excused from Shield and not selected. In any event, didn't he play grade cricket?
Basil
Guest
You cannot bash the selectors for selecting Mennie. He was the leading wicket taker in the Shield last year and had a very good series vs South Africa A no that long ago. I don't know what some of you want. We are now having a go at selectors for picking guys with performance and form in First Class Cricket behind them? Seriously? The fact is, Mennie should've played in Perth rather than going in with 2 underdone bowlers in Starc and Siddle. Starc had to play but Siddle would've been better off having an extra week before Hobart. Mennie has been unfairly treated by the selectors, the media, and now the "supporters". He has been made a scapegoat and a very good chance of never playing again for Australia. Having to bowl in your first game with only 85 on the board - No scoreboard pressure whatsoever and the media storm of Jackson Bird looming over his head. Then, he gets dropped. If the the selectors haven't killed his confidence I congratulate the man.
Correct sometimes
Guest
No bounce or swing, terrible flat action
jameswm
Roar Guru
Wasn't Mennie injured? Isn't that why he missed the SHield games?