On Thursday Nic Maddinson will make his Test debut for Australia. It’s not a selection based on outstanding first class form.
From the opening two Sheffield Shield matches this season, he’s averaged 38.75.
It’s not a selection based on an outstanding career record, either. From 59 first class matches for New South Wales and Australia A he averages 37.65.
He has eight career hundreds, but never more than two in the same season.
It’s a selection based off how good Maddinson could be.
A magical 113 on New South Wales debut (and opening the batting, no less) as a 19-year-old set the tone for what to expect from the stylish left hander.
He really is a great batsman to watch when he’s in form, very pleasant on the eye.
And so Maddinson will join the list of cricketers selected for Australia based more off potential and ‘instinct’ as selector Mark Waugh called it, than actual ‘runs on the board’, if you’ll excuse the cliché.
Ashton Agar, Glenn Maxwell, Moises Henriques, David Warner, Pat Cummins and now Matt Renshaw are just some of the names. Some of these selections worked out remarkably well, others did not.
Warner had played just 11 first class matches before his Test debut. Agar had played just ten and Cummins just three. Renshaw has represented Queensland 11 times and Australia A once.
You can understand the selectors’ thinking in these examples, i.e. these players are so talented that they must be considered immediately.
It’s the philosophy that it’s better to choose a player who could be great instead of a player who has been great.
So it makes Australian cricket fans anxious, confused and angry that after five Sheffield Shield seasons, a player like Maddinson can still be considered a ‘potential match-winner’.
Sure he’s only 24, but as Mike Hussey said during the week, just choose the best batsmen, full stop.
As a side-note, why are we playing ‘match-winners’? Wasn’t it just last week that we were all crying out for Chris Rogers, Rahul Dravid-style crease occupier?
It would be far more understandable to see Maddinson selected in a Twenty20 or ODI squad, as he has been before.
But sustaining a strong limited record for your country doesn’t always translate into Test successes, just ask Callum Ferguson.
Of course, we’re probably going to end up whingeing about whomever the selectors choose, but some clarity would give us less to complain about.
1794 runs at 52.8 over his last 24 Sheffield Shield matches means the Peter Handscomb selection makes good sense.
Likewise Matt Renshaw, who churned out 738 runs at 43.4 at the top of the order for Queensland last summer, got a 94 against South Africa A in July before returning to the Shield with 108 against South Australia.
Now that he’s been selected, we’re all hoping Maddinson does well on debut.
A whitewash on home soil would be a new low for Australian cricket. We’re going to need our match-winners to stand up and start winning matches.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
I agree with you but even with that batting line-up ahead of him, Symonds had a First Class average of 40 and was a more than handy bowler, making Maddinson's selection ever less sound. Its the one change that really makes very little sense.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Surely the Mitch Marsh experiment reveals for all to see, the flaws with 'picking on promise and potential'. Especially when added to that is the ultra-aggressive mantra of those "promising' players. promise and potential will equate to performances and in the red ball, longer format. The likes of Marsh, selected to bat as a test #6 with a first class average of 28, is nothing short of idiotic. He weakens a shield side batting at six and destroys the integrity of a test top order. "He could be very good". How many times will we hear this rubbish? Great... When he is good enough, select him. Test cricket is not the developmental stage of Australian cricket. To make decisions that suggest otherwise is nothing short of disrespectful for the game. Maddinson does not deserve to be in the test side ahead of his state teammate Kurtis Patterson. The selectors have erred with this and one can only hope, for Nic's sake, that the selection whim, gets lucky and he finds more success than his stats and recent form suggest he will.
James
Guest
Who do you pick though?? Currently there's not many players screaming to be picked for their sheer weight of numbers
matth
Guest
You can only afford to carry an Andrew Symonds (i.e. Maddinson) where you have a top five of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn and Clarke. then they can average their mid 30's and every now and then tee off and win you a game.
JamesH
Roar Guru
To be fair, this is only the second potential-based selection we've had for a while, at least in terms of batting, with the other being M Marsh. Voges, Ferguson, Khawaja, Burns and S Marsh all forced their way into (or back into) the side with strong Shield performances. I think there is room for selecting a player or two on potential in certain situations - e.g. where there isn't another obvious candidate that should be picked (which I think is why Renshaw got the nod after only one season), or where the team is performing strongly and you can afford to carry an unknown element (like when Ponting and Clarke were first selected). Unfortunately neither of those circumstances currently exists. Patterson warranted selection ahead of Maddinson and the team as a whole has been rubbish. For Aussie cricket's sake I hope Madinson and co do well, but no doubt it's a big gamble.