Another Indian tour that got away. That best sums up the feeling right now.
Sure the Aussies aimed up in the most recent series, but let’s face it, they were thwarted yet again by some brilliant individual Indian batting, interesting pitches and their own zest for soul-destroying batting collapses.
However, despite India’s home-cooked pitches dishing up a batsman’s assortment of unsavoury bowling cuisines, did the Aussies ultimately fall victim to their own ham-fisted player selection pudding of favourites, has-beens and hopefuls?
By looking at some of the key moments in the series, where it was there to be won or lost, you can easily argue that with a minor shuffle in the deck the end result could have been much different.
A quick glance at the stats sheet and brief peep at the team list, one can look no further than at players’ names which end in Marsh to pinpoint a couple of eggs who may have spoiled Australia’s omelette.
But singling out the two Marsh brothers as the sole reason the Aussies were served seconds in the Test series would be mildly short sighted. They are only partly to blame.
The Marsh brothers certainly didn’t pick themselves – mountains of Shield runs and wickets did that, didn’t they?
Or is team selection these days based on other criteria?
It seems ten years worth of Shield numbers can easily be pushed to one side of the plate if baggy green selection criterion number one is nepotism.
Darren Lehmann, for one, seems to be escaping some much needed critiquing. Boof has been at the centre of couple of odd team selections and omissions since he donned the coach’s cap. One of the more notable rissolings was the parcelling and shipping out of a player was Ed Cowen.
His package was stamped return to sender – do not return. Hundreds of Shield runs and years later, Ed can count himself rather unlucky to have not been given another crack at the top level since his banishing.
Cowen’s lack of genetic connection to the baggy green could be seen as one factor in his shelving, but it’s more likely down to his frosty relationship with Lehmann. Cowen has openly spun yarns about the two’s inability to break the bread with other.
Usman Kawaja is the second of Boof’s discards which comes to mind. Much like a bowl of sago, Usman has been on and off the main menu for a few years despite the extra helpings of runs he’s gathered in recent times.
Yet Lehmann and Co seem to be fixated at looking for excuses as to why not to pick Kawaja. His non-participation medal on the Indian tour was probably the worst example of persona non-grata in the Australian cricket team since Brad Hodge was put through the egg beater and whisked back to the Sheffield Shield, despite owning a very recent double hundred to his name at the time.
If we were to put our chickens on the table, Shaun Marsh tried hard, but Lehmann is surely reaching for the paper towel to wipe the egg off his face. Marsh’s series was below average and well short of what Usman had been producing. Marsh’s times at the crease in India mirrored his entire career: one decent knock surrounded by a medley of tasteless orderve sized innings.
For Shaun Marsh, it’s surely his last bite of the cherry.
As for Mitch Marsh, he will be given another go. But his time should come after he has done some serious time chopping through the tough rump of Shield cricket. Dominance of the domestic competition will signal his readiness for Test cricket’s fiery soup.
To expect that the Indian tour will prove to be the last time we see such half-baked player selections might be a bit fanciful for fans to wish.
But we can still hope that the experience may have knocked some short term common sense back into a selection panel who for one reason or another got too cute with their player selections or sniffed some sort of nostalgic brew no-one else could see. Either way, they cooked their own goose.
The Anti-Don
Roar Rookie
You are the world's biggest clown Don Freo.... you are still going in to bat for Mitch Marsh.... what would it take for you to acknowledge that perhaps Mitch is over rated?... and whilst we are at it, what would it take for you to admit that his brother Shaun is over rated/? I'll tell you what...nothing. There is nothing that would ever have you say something negative about the Marsh boys is there... or any Western Australian cricketer for that matter... You sound like those Trump loyalists that appear on news programs explaining away all of Trump's woes by just denying the facts that actually exist. Biased and small minded as always Don Freo....
Ants32
Roar Rookie
Nope. I thought that was Pat Howard's job as high performance manager or some such equally useless managerial position. :(
AREH
Roar Guru
I could see Finch in the test side being perfect for counter-punching at number six when the score is 4-250; however I'd seriously worry about him batting to resurrect an innings, needing to occupy the crease when Aus is 4-40 in the first session.
Don Freo
Guest
Interesting take on Mitch scoring "zilch" domestically, Brasstax. The only comp in which he played more than 2 games was the Big Bash...where he played 5 games and averaged 70. Not quite "zilch".
Don Freo
Guest
Form is the obvious reason, Brian. If you want form from Mitch, you need to demand it from Faulkner too. Wildermuth is the far better bet. Faster than both and a genuine batsman.
Don Freo
Guest
With your thinking, why not give Maxwell the gloves...or Heazlett...or Head? May as well turn Renshaw into a quickie and Lyon into a number 3 batsman. We could bat all the way to #11 and have all 11 be able to bowl...and 4 possible interchangeable wicket keepers. Just name them there...ability doesn't need to factor.
Garry Edwards
Guest
Well I'll be damned the Marsh bros! I"ve heard all this before, granted not as subtle but nonetheless. And I was mediated.
qwetzen
Guest
Ozibatla said: "Maybe some sort of regulatory body can be instilled to oversee the results, effectiveness and treatment of selections." Isn't that CNSWs role?
qwetzen
Guest
Disco Stu, And another compelling reason for keeping the gloves off Handscomb is that he's a bloody good close fieldsman. (Has he dropped a catch yet?)
qwetzen
Guest
Spruce, Yes, you can make that argument, especially in hindsight. I didn't agree with the M Marsh selection, being a red-hot advocate of using current form, but I could see the logic of it, and it wasn't in the same class of blunder as Nic Maddinson.
Disco Stu
Roar Rookie
Bahahahaha. I'm not always a qwetzen fan, but that's a pretty comprehensive shutdown. And I think one of the best arguments for NOT making Handscomb the keeper is that he doesn't want it. If he thought he could be the best keeper and still a good batsman he'd jump at the chance but he is not keen. What we don't need is to have a substandard keeper and, at the same time, cause one of our most promising batsman to suddenly score less runs.
Tom Oliver
Roar Rookie
I entirely agree with the Marsh sentiment but that article comes off a bit half baked with all the food puns. Not much meat on the bones I'm sorry to say.
spruce moose
Guest
You can make an argument and suggest that if Lehmann hadn't picked Mitchell Marsh, then Australia would have won the series. The lack of runs and wickets were particularly noticable in the second test.
Nudge
Guest
The king of the pointless ramble
El Loco
Roar Rookie
But did we almost win in India? Yes we could've wrapped up the series in the second test with that tough but gettable target, but ultimately we didn't get close. And we thoroughly blew the decider. It's true that we're all smarter in hindsight, but I think it's pretty reasonable to ask where we could have considered changes mid-series.
qwetzen
Guest
Yep, and it's been unchanged in response to all the Hindsight Heroes. I'd rather not waste too much time on Mr Brown's piece because it's not very good, but here's a few things; 1. How can Mr Brown attack the Marshes and Lehmann for 'failure' but not mention Warner even once? 2. "It seems ten years worth of Shield numbers can easily be pushed to one side of the plate if baggy green selection criterion number one is nepotism." The common definition of "nepotism" is favouring members of your family. Unless Mr Brown has some inside knowledge which he'd care to share then I'd opine that he means "cronyism". 3. But either way, could Mr Brown explain how Lehmann, this evil Svengali-type figure, manages to decide selections when he's either one third or one quarter of the selection panel? 4. Lehmann actually deserves some kudos for the tour results. Oz went there widely expected to lose 4-0. Instead, we narrowly lost 2-1 and in the process knocked the #1 ranked bowler off top spot & demolished the world's #1 batsman. Aust also had a plan to change their traditional gung ho batting to a tailored 'Bat long' strategy. Credit where credit is due hey. 5. Mr Brown (and you) are perfectly happy to bag others performances but get all snitty when someone bags yours. That's not a good look boys. 6. Mr Brown's idea of putting the gloves on Handscomb can only mean one of two things. Either he hasn't seen him keep, or he's a lousy judge. 7. Mr Brown is sloppy. If you're going to have an extended whine about a player who you believe has been harshly treated then it'd look shedloads more credible if you actually knew his name. "Cowan" isn't really that difficult. 8. Mr Brown is specious. He writes; "One of the more notable rissolings [by Lehmann] was the parcelling and shipping out of a player was Ed Cowen [sic]" After an extended run, Cowan was dropped while his average was 31.8 and heading south. How this is a "notable rissoling" only Mr Brown knows. And, incidentally, he was replaced by Khawaja. Not many would say that was a retrograde step. Or "nepotism". Mr Brown also said of "Cowen [sic]"; "Hundreds of Shield runs and years later, Ed can count himself rather unlucky to have not been given another crack at the top level since his banishing." After being dropped in mid 2013 Cowans' Shield averages were; 2013/14 - 38.9 2014/15 - 47.9 2015/16 - 36.6 These are not the figures of someone "unlucky" not to get a recall. Yes, he finished the last season with a rush, but the plane had long gone by then. Oh and Mr Brown, your name-calling is juvenile.
Ozibatla
Guest
I think majority here will agree that there is not enough accountability towards the selectors. Im not sure how to rectify such an issue. Maybe some sort of regulatory body can be instilled to oversee the results, effectiveness and treatment of selections. But I suppose thats another group of figureheads that will need to be overseen and ruled upon...where does it end? With the amount of money and power enthrusted towards them, is it any wonder that individuals cast into such important, dominating positions are playing hard ball into pushing their own agenda, ie: Lehmann, Clarke, Sutherland etc. Horses for courses, increased pace velocity for fast bowlers, certain country specialists, workload monitoring. These terms have either come to existence under Lehmanns tenure or flourished towards greater extremeties whilst Boofs been coach. It smacks of over analysing and running too tight a ship in my eyes, but hey im certainly no expert. As for Clarke, his brown nosing towards the Indians at times during the recent series was very suspect to say the least. One gets the feeling hes posturing for a continued role within the ever evolving cash cow that is the IPL. Sounded to me like he was partaking in a popularity contest on occasions.
Rana
Guest
Well said pope, in particular Khawaja's non selection was absurd, he is a class batsman
Mr Brown
Roar Pro
Watch out their Travis, Quiggly will put you on his C list.
Jameswm
Guest
Maxwell is Voldermort. He whose name cannot be mentioned.