With confetti still flicking at his feet and shadows lengthening on the outfield at Sinhalese Sports Club in Colombo last August, a pragmatic Darren Lehmann conceded conventional wisdom in the sub-continent needed to be challenged.
Australia had just copped another hammering to Sri Lanka in the third Test – this time a 163-run hiding – that sealed the jubilant hosts a 3-0 series victory. It was Australia’s third straight Test series had been whitewashed in Asia following a 4-0 loss to India in 2013 and 2-0 defeat to Pakistan in the UAE in 2014.
Remember that leading into the series, Australia were ranked No.1 in the world and had lost just one Test match to Sri Lanka in 26 clashes over 34 years. They went on to lose three in three weeks.
The message was blunt.
For a coach whose trademark is an emphasis on simplicity, Lehmann was emphatic in his outlook with four Tests in India looming in six months.
He had a mandate to change the way Australia approached the toughest assignment in world cricket – beating a rampant Virat Kohli-led side on the parched pitches in a country where the memories of a rare away series triumph in 2004 were starting to fade.
We all know about Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing something over and over again and expecting a different result.
“We have underperformed. There is no hiding from that. The difference is, we have got to change on the sub-continent,” Lehmann said on August 17 in Colombo.
“Results would say that. Obviously, with India, (against Pakistan in the) UAE and now Sri Lanka, we have got to change how we pick and shape up a squad for the sub-continent.”
And that’s why Matt Renshaw shouldn’t be picked for the first Test in Pune starting Thursday.
In essence, Lehmann’s mindset had moved stridently towards the dreaded “Horses For Courses” selection policy; dreaded in the sense it flies in the face of cricket convention that a batsman who makes runs in Brisbane is just as capable of racking ’em up in Bangalore, Barbados or Birmingham.
But for Australia, at least, it hasn’t worked often enough.
Renshaw’s Queensland teammates Joe Burns and Usman Khawaja are as solid a testimony to this as anyone.
They both scored heavily against New Zealand and the West Indies in the Australian summer before the Sri Lankan series but after two humbling Tests in Kandy and Galle, they were deemed mentally frail and axed.
Rangana Herath, Diruwan Perera and Lakshan Sandakan made them look a shadow of their former selves within 10 days.
Selectors hit the right note with Renshaw – and Peter Handscomb – after the debacle of the first two home Tests against South Africa.
It took pretty big cojones to pick a 20-year-old who had only just clocked up 10 first-class games.
But they saw in him an opening batsman with an old-fashioned approach, a precious breed with a long-form temperament who could anchor a Test innings as David Warner and Steve Smith blazed away around him.
He hit 184 against a lively Pakistan pace attack. He was watchful and composed. He caught well. He gave an insecure side a tangible lift.
I don’t want to see all that come undone in India.
He made a strong start to his Test career in large part because most of his Sheffield Shield runs were banked on the fast and bouncy Gabba deck. His Shield apprenticeship was brief but it was appropriate for the speed that Pakistan was to throw at him: Mohammad Amir, Wahab Riaz, Rahat Ali and Sohail Khan.
Yes, he also blunted their skilful legspinner Yasir Shah, swept him, drove him, cut him and negotiated him with authority.
But Ravi Ashwin takes a top-class batsman to a whole new level of inquisition. Ravi Jadeja will get it fizzing and spitting on day two as well. India might even go with a third spinner. Ashwin may even open the bowling.
If not he’ll get a hold of the ball around the 10th over of the innings. Jadeja will get a go in the first 15. Getting a nice coverage of grass on the pitches in Pune, Bangalore, Ranchi and Dharamsala will be as likely as the heavens delivering snow to the Gabba.
Renshaw gets plenty around the ribs and shoulders in Brisbane; that hardly sets him up well for the low and dusty decks of India. It would be like sending a bull rider from a rodeo into an equestrian event; dealing with the fast and furious won’t necessarily cut it when soft hands and subtlety is required.
So why would you send Renshaw into the fire?
His CV has little to suggest he can handle the Ashwin-Jadeja baptism. He might turn out to become an adept player of spin bowling, but throwing him in now might just be too big a handbrake on a promising Test career.
His temperament has been impressive already. He has a long reach and his long levers and huge stride might mean he can get down the wicket to drive and sweep. Let him continue to make runs in Hobart, Adelaide, Sydney and Melbourne against some crafty Sheffield Shield slow bowlers.
My Australian XI for Pune: David Warner, Shaun Marsh, Usman Khawaja, Steve Smith, Peter Handscomb, Glenn Maxwell, Matthew Wade, Steve O’Keefe, Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon, Josh Hazlewood.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Hutchoman I would vote for you to be chief selector. These muppets need to read this then implement it. Awesome post
Casper
Guest
So at stumps on day one, everything suggested by roar expert Will Knight indicates his status should be revoked to rookie. Never made sense then, confirmed as flawed logic in hindsight. Pace got as many wickets as spin, Marsh brothers again flop when resilience is needed, Renshaw continues to prove pundits wrong, Wade maintains his consistent standards and Starc pulls us out of the mire. In particular, Sean Marsh was a dumb dismissal, India telegraphed their tactics yet he fell for the bait.
qwetzen
Guest
Is his status up for review now?
Glenn sweetten
Guest
Will knight, probably one of the worst pieces I have ever read, just because he plays at the Gabba he therefore can't play spin? Wowwee...well there goes Matty Hayden's career down the drain by that logic, have to give the kid a fair shake of the sauce bottle, he's our future after all...how is he supposed to get experience in spinning conditions against world class spinners without playing in the sub continent? Both marsh brothers warner, kahwaja, handscomb, wade should also not get a game? What's their record on India? Explains why this is the first time I've seen your name will! Lift your game
Tristan Rayner
Editor
Nice to see you on as an expert Knighty!
DLKN
Guest
And extending the logic further, let's drop Warner, because his test average offshore, and in India in particular, is decidedly second-hand. That makes as much sense as your horses-for-courses argument. What if Renshaw goes big in the first test? We could have a batsman to build the team around for the next decade. That's a lot better than your pessimistic "what if"...
Cadfael
Roar Guru
On the other hand, you are picking Shaun Marsh who has done well in Sri Lanka but never played in India and Maxwell who really has done nothing. I agree with Hutcho that we need to pick 6 batsmen, a keeper (pity it has to be Wade) and four bowlers. last time we won in India it was with apace attack. maybe they should look at Starc, Hazelwood and Bird with Lyon or SOK for spin with Smith and Warner for backup.
George
Guest
You mean like Warner is?
NovaKay
Guest
Khawaja is gunna be a deadset walking wicket over there. Better off giving the young bloke a run and see how he goes.
Will Knight
Guest
Good points Hutchoman. I'm saying pick the team best suited to the conditions - and Renshaw is a 20-year-old who has played 15 or so first-class matches and most of them on the fast and bouncy Gabba deck. Like sending Mark Philipoussis to Roland Garros and hoping he'll get into the grind.
Big Tom Bumpkin
Guest
Canned turds?
Edward hickson
Guest
Hey knighty Hope all is well Great to read your article Feel Uzie is being hard done by What ever the selectors do will be wrong as we are going to get flogged
Hutchoman
Roar Pro
Don't start me on the disgraceful handling of Phil Hughes (God rest his soul). We picked a young bloke with massive potential, perhaps with a range of shortcomings, but nonetheless with an immaculate record and prodigious talent. We sent him off to South Africa and lauded him as "the next Bradman" after his exploits there. Two Tests later the selectors basically tell the bloke he can't bat ... an opener that can't play the short ball ... and chucked him into the bits and pieces bin. Phil should have been absolutely coached, mentored, counseled and carried through his entry to Test cricket. Instead we had him in and out of the team for years, perpetually unsure of his place and future and wondered why he could never quite fulfill that talent. If Renshaw is to be the future at the top of the order, he needs to be trained in all conditions around the world. Unfortunately that will include a lot of "on the job training" which means failures/errors will be made during the apprenticeship. I don't understand what the alternative is. Every time we go to India/SL/Pak (UAE) we drop Renshaw and draft someone in "who can play spin"? Where are we going to find this opener? Presumably they can't play pace, because if they could play pace AND spin, surely they would be in the team already! From there then are we basically saying we're not going to pick our "best team" for these tours because we want to protect them for when conditions are more favourable? Does that in turn mean we are essentially going to give up these away series? How far do we go with this? Pick players who can play the swinging ball for Eng/NZ (but presumably can't play the straight ball)? Conversely, is our "best team" then a bunch of flat track bullies and bang the deck bowlers who can blast teams in favourable Australian (and maybe SA) conditions to the delight of home crowds and broadcasters, but can't tour? The mind boggles ... If the reality of it is that we currently don't have the team to win in Indian (or any other) conditions, let's admit that and deal with it. And deal with it by assembling the best possible team and building all the requisite skills into them. Six best batsmen ... six best batsmen ... six best batsmen. This must be the mantra of our selectors. Work out who they are and pick them. Build the requisite skills in them and their successors. Accept that our best six right now might not have all the skills, but build a plan to give them those skills ... and more importantly what's the plan to build those skills in the batsmen who will believe will/could replace the current selections over time.
Felix
Guest
So by your logic he's not allowed to play in the test team, on any decks, until he sweeps SOK in preparation for a sub continent tour in 3 years? How would he go in NZ, SA or WI where the pitches are more similar to his home conditions? Oh we won't know because he'll be wasting his damn time playing in SS games against bowlers not good enough to represent their country while the rest of them are on tour.
Big Tom Bumpkin
Guest
Any chance we can win this first test boys?
qwetzen
Guest
"Hmmm so if he fails in the first couple you keep picking him?!?" One of the joys of being a selector, observing *how* a player fails. If he gets a couple of unplayables early on then he gets a longer run than if he's out to a gaping technical flaw, think Phil Hughes in England in 2009.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
Handscomb is no more proven against spin than Renshaw. So he plays spin well in Australia? So does Khawaja. If you're going to change the mindset you at least have to start with facts.
Pope Paul VII
Guest
very funny and true
qwetzen
Guest
Thanks for the reply. re Clarke: You wrote; "...had shown over a prolonged period that he could score against good spin bowling." Clarke's SS seasons' averages before he was picked were; 31.9, 25.6, 38.8, 47.7 & 18.5 (only two games). Even if he only faced spin before a quick got him these averages are not those of someone who is good against spin. In Clarke's 'breakout' season of 2002/03 where he averaged in the 40s for the first time he scored 4 centuries. The oppositions' slow bowlers in those matches were; Andrew Symonds, Jon Davison, Mark Higgs, Beau Casson and Matthew Anderson. So I'd opine that your statement that I've quoted is very much male cow produce. I also posted recently that Clarke had a significantly higher %age of dismissals against slow bowlers than his contemporaries Hussey and Ponting. Again belying this myth about Clarke being "a great player of spin.". It's irritating when our media sprout baseless opinions and those opinions become "factual" history. (Mark Taylor is #1 on my hit list for doing this.) Roll on better stats.
George
Guest
Big ask for Lehmann to reflect upon his overseas failures, let alone learn from them.