Obvious allegiances aside, I have a bit of sympathy for Australia.
To exit a tournament having failed to complete any of your three group fixtures must grate, even for the most phlegmatic of individuals.
In the ICC Champions Trophy, Australia were certainly behind the eight ball against New Zealand, but may have been able to alter the momentum and come out on top.
It is hardly stretching logic to suggest that Bangladesh would’ve been seen off comfortably – then again they might have not – and although England were safely on course to overhaul the Aussies’ target, teams occasionally snatch defeat from the jaws of near-certain victory, so very few predictions are 100 per cent secure.
However, Steve Smith’s men were off the pace in their opener, recovered to be pretty good next time out before – once again at Edgbaston, which really isn’t their happiest of hunting grounds – being under par in the decider.
In such a truncated event, where the vast majority of games have something riding on them, this kind of form – and I’m sure the South Africans would agree – is just asking for trouble and a premature business class flight home.
Myriad factors could be presented as to why Australia fluffed their lines – a lack of adequate preparation, a much-vaunted seam attack firing on less than all available cylinders, the inclement English weather – but let’s concentrate on one in particular: Moises Henriques.
The New South Welshman is a good, honest-as-the-day-is-long cricketer. He has a decent record, he doesn’t let anybody down and would command more plusses than minuses if a report card was to be produced.
He isn’t, however, an international number four.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
And as long as there are 24 hours in a day, my golf game is wildly inconsistent and the American president has skin a curiously pallid shade of orange, he never will be.
I’d have backed Mark Waugh to have produced a more convincing display in the same position, and I don’t mean the mid-1990s vintage but the 52-year-old of 2017.
I thought the bits-and-pieces cricketer was a thing of the past, a trend that worked for a short while until it was discovered that those who specialise in a particular discipline are, by and large, more productive.
That said, there is no reason why a cricketer like Henriques couldn’t play a role in the national side, but batting at seven or eight and bowling a few overs would be a far more natural fit. After all, square pegs really don’t go into round holes.
As a result, a top six containing five batsmen proved to be short-sighted at best. Not fancying the chances of your five-man attack to do a job is one thing, but weakening the batting to cover the potential cracks is another.
With a format that has accelerated at express pace to the run gluts now commonplace, it makes little sense to gamble in such a way, especially when, in Glenn Maxwell, you already have a sixth bowler.
Yes, you expect Smith, David Warner and Aaron Finch to dictate terms and win games but limiting their available support will have a detrimental effect on too many occasions. A weak link is a weak link and any opposition would rather see Henriques walking in at second drop than Chris Lynn or any other frontline batsman.
And the sight of Bangladesh facing India in the semi-finals should be enough of a jab in the ribs to bring about the necessary changes the next time Australia feature in an ODI.
Rob
Guest
Ok Chris, you have pointed out Henriques bats at 4 for NSW sometimes. The fact is he averages 9 in ODI's for Australia and Maxwell averages 32.95 for Australia. You say Henriques has been in form in the Matador Cup? The Matador Cup final was played 8 months ago. Lyon took 4/10 in the final so why was't he the spinner on that logic? You say Maxwell isn't in form but he finished 2nd to Smith in the batting averages on the last Test Tour of India which was completed 2 months ago. I repeat how does Henriques bat before Maxwell or Head? WT hell, Maxwell is statistically at his least effective at 6 in ODI cricket. Why keep batting him there? Maxwell's best results are at 1, 3 and 5 when he has more time. How are Khawaja and Lynn considered to be behind Henriques as ODI batsmen? In a must win game you play your most attacking and most experienced players which Lynn and Khawaja are. Not a 30 year old number 7 at 4 IMO.
Giri Subramanian
Roar Guru
Warner has lots of experience playing in India. It would be difficult not to pick him. He has scored loads of runs in IPL for Sunrisers and he will be the key for Australia on Indian pitches. Most of the Australian players play in the IPL now except for Khawaja and Handscomb. But my question is this, I think Khawaja and Handscomb will be in Australia's Ashes Squad, will travelling to India for a ODI series be of any help to them? Also I think that Australia should include James Faulkner, he had a brilliant series in India last time and is a very good bowler at the death. Cummins and Pattinson should not play in the ODI series as they are prone to injuries and Australia cannot afford to lose either of them before the Ashes. Australia would need Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood and Pattinson fit for the Ashes. At least two spinners is a must in India Adam Zampa and possibly Ashton Agar as the all-rounder? Maxwell will bowl some spin along with Head.
TheCunningLinguistic
Guest
Or Shaun Marsh, who's still one of the better and consistent (yes, I know, not a word we normally associate with the Marsh brothers) batsmen in One Day cricket.
Stephen
Guest
Khawaja should have opened or at least be at 4, how could we leave such a solid batsman back home with a allrounder at 4
qwetzen
Guest
Yep. It's lucky that we've got the quicks to take advantage of those Green Monsters that you get all the time in India.
qwetzen
Guest
I read today that Berry has joined the growing chorus who are criticising Smith. Wonder if Smith will be 'rested' from the next ODI series?
Simon
Guest
I agree, there's been a lot of ignorance following our defeat of Henrique's batting talent and suggestions he's a number 8 are just strange. He's performed extremely well with the bat in the last few years and if he was at his peak he could potentially be a number 4. The problem with that is you need to give him time to become an international number 4 and just dropping him there in a pressure series like this wasn't the way to go
jammel
Guest
Henriques at #4 was a strange one. I was shaking my head when he was listed there. He was in good form over the summer - but I just don't see Moises as a four in ODIs, it's just an opinion. Don't mind a Henriques or MMarsh listed at #7 - a cool head, some power, 6 or 7 tidy overs. But you need proper batsmen that can make BIG scores at 1-5. And you need a mix of power players and workers (even England still play batsmen that can work the ball and build an innings). Just a shame that Australia took that approach in this tournament. It would have been better if we went for the power plays at all times - eg Patto with the other 3 quicks, or Lynn opening with Warner. At least a move like that might have come off and paid dividends. I just never see XIs which are full of part-timer bats and part-timer bowlers winning a tournament. When we won the most recent World Cup, it was on the back of dominant performances from Starc, Hazlewood et al; specialists.
jammel
Guest
Too many bits and pieces players - we really only had 3 specialist batsmen, or four if you count Head. Other teams have six or seven sometimes (England have Moeen at #7)! We missed proper batsmen like Khawaja in particular. Maybe Bailey too. We need 5 proper batsmen as a minimum. We also missed Faulkner IMO - I said this before the tournament in relation to both UTK and Faulkner. Now's the time in 50 over cricket to start building for the future (I wouldn't continue with the likes of Wade/Bailey/SMarsh/Hastings/even Finch). Henriques is gone. Patto needs to focus on economy too if he's to be a chance. I'd go with a best XI (and reserves) like the following: Warner V Khawaja Smith C Lynn Handscomb + Head (or Maxwell if/when he finds some form) Faulkner (or MMarsh or Stoinis if you need even more batting) Starc Cummins Zampa (or Behrendorff - you could play Head and Maxwell instead of Faulkner) Hazlewood
Bring Back...?
Guest
Warner's record overseas is well documented. Why does everyone want to keep picking him? Have to agree with all the comments re Henriques but I reckon the other ODI myth is Cummins. His performances against NZ and Eng were very sub-par for a front line bowler and I can't recall him impressing much in the one day stuff for quite a while. Good batsmen love using pace and Cummins offers up far too much loose stuff. Depending on conditions of course, I'd be looking at a bowling attack of Starc, Hazelwood, Zampa, O'Keefe, Head, Maxwell and probably Stoinis - although the Stoinis call is based on one great performance and reflects my lack of knowledge of which medium pacers are around.
Simoc
Guest
Handscomb isn't a wicketkeeper. He's a backstop when there is no wicketkeeper. Henriques was a poor selection and always has been at international level. Maxwell is only a batsman in a Smith captained team. Smith only goes to spin as a last resort and then not to Maxwell if possible. Hopefully he'll improve his captaincy in time.
Art Vanderlay
Guest
You aren't suggesting the Smurf is actually more of a Muppet are you?
Bucks
Guest
The XI for India ODI tour needs to be; Warner, Khawaja, Smith (c), Lynn, Head, Maxwell, Wade (wk), Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood, Zampa/Hastings (depending on conditions). Subs: Cartwright, Finch, Hastings/Zampa, Behrendorf
Pope Paul VII
Guest
According to Lehmann, Smith wanted Moises at 4. Was Smith a tour selector? Anyway he was wrong. Selectors should select without fear or favour but they don't. This team and the teams chosen in India were both unsuccessful because they choose who they wanted to succeed over those who were most likely to succeed.
AREH
Roar Guru
Yeah Aus really needed more of a rock at number 4 who can turn the scoring over with 1s and 2s, and capable of going bigger when required; that'd ideally be either of Head or Handscomb.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
To be fair, Henriques does bat #4 in state 50-over cricket. And his record over the last few seasons has been among the best batsmen in the country. So to some extent I can see why you could consider him basically as a batsman in the team, but if you are going to bring in someone like Henriques who's record of stepping up to the top level isn't great, they really needed to bring him in for the ODI's in the Aussie summer, and the ones in NZ. Give him a run at things before the CT. To bring in a player like Henriques straight into the CT like that was unlikely to work. Australia had several ODI series through the last 12 months. Why would you bring in a player straight to the CT who you haven't played in any of those ODI's previously? And if you have injuries and need to look beyond squads that played in those matches, surely the best options are players with more experience. In reality, selections like this point to the idea that the selectors treat every ODI in the 3 years after a WC as experimental games for trying out players so they can then work out a settled squad for the last 12 months leading into the WC. And that even includes the CT itself apparently. It's the only way you could make sense of such a selection. If you were purely looking at the CT as a tournament to win, not just another stepping stone towards the next WC, then you'd pick the tried and true players with form on the board not just in domestic cricket, but international cricket, and you'd leave giving players like Henriques a go for other ODI series.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Everybody blames Freddy, but after 12 years maybe we can move on from the thinking. There have been signs we have in Tests with us picking mostly 6 batsmen since Hobart.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I don't think that's got much to do with it in ODI's. You generally want 6 decent bowling options in ODI's as you have to have 5 bowlers minimum for 10 overs each, so if one goes down or has a really off day you need at least one back up in the side. So that makes a big difference to tests, where it is actually possible to play 4 bowlers, in ODI's you really need 2 more bowling options than the minimum you can play in tests.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Considering Maxwell simply isn't being used as a bowler, and really doesn't have much recent form with the bat, you could potentially put in Lynn in place of Maxwell in that lineup. Of course, then you really do only have 5 bowlers in the side, one of whom is Head, with only the real part timers of Smith and Warner offering anything else, so it doesn't give you any real back up options. Most sides would want a 6th bowler in ODI's.
James
Guest
I blame Freddie still. He did such a good job in 2005 that Australia has been obsessed with trying to replicate him with batsmen who can bowl a little and bowlers who can bat a little and calling them all rounders.