While Australians shouldn’t get too cocky after the convincing win in the first Test – it’s a long series after all – it does appear as though the battle between ‘armchair critics’ and the Australian selectors may just be the spicier clash this summer.
It’s a thankless job being a selector. You need to resign yourself to the fact that you will never, ever please all and sundry, as everyone has their own opinions on players, and the merits of them being selected.
Ask ten people for their Test team, and you may get ten different teams.
Such difference in opinion sparks great debate, and I’m sure the banter at the actual selection table is no different. That’s part and parcel of having a point of view on something with a lot of ‘moving parts’, emotion, and yes, even bias.
However, it did seem like there was a higher-than-normal amount of grumpy people after the announcement of the Australian squad for Brisbane.
The selectors’ three most contentious picks were undoubtedly Cameron Bancroft, Tim Paine, and in particular, Shaun Marsh.
Bancroft’s inclusion wasn’t the most controversial, as he was coming off some big scores, and was therefore in form. However, some felt that it was ridiculous that Matt Renshaw could lose his spot after scoring 184 in his last Test in Australia. Needless to say, they believed he deserved to be retained at the top of the order.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
The Paine selection certainly raised some eyebrows, if not some angry fists.
He wasn’t even keeping for his home state this summer, as ex-Text wicketkeeper Matt Wade had the gloves for Tasmania. Paine wasn’t quite tearing it up as a batsman either, with his last hundred coming in 2006, and his average below 20 last season.
As such, he was one of the most shocking selections in recent memory, and countless people lost their minds. Ex-Australian leg spinner Stu Macgill – who believed Peter Nevill should have been recalled – was even moved to label the selectors as “morons masquerading as mentors”.
Yet without a doubt, the name called out that caused the most negative reaction was Shaun Marsh.
The West Australian was recalled for the eighth time in his career, despite averaging just 39 in Shield cricket this year, and still being associated with the word ‘potential’, even though he is now 34.
Marsh is consistently a lightning rod for criticism, courtesy of his repeated failings with the bat, and to a lesser extent, his injuries. He’s been dubbed ‘extremely lucky’ by many in the cricketing fraternity, and, in what has become an annual tradition, his selection was met with plenty of bewilderment, not to mention vitriol.
I may or may not have been the ringleader in that department.
There were even calls for the selection panel to lose their jobs.
The selectors can proudly look back at these three selections, and feel nothing but vindicated by their choices. For a few days, at least.
Renshaw may have been the incumbent opener, but sadly, the Queenslander had a string of low scores in the Sheffield Shield, and didn’t set the world on fire in India and Bangladesh. This left him susceptible to being dropped, and the selectors decided to do just that, replacing him with Bancroft.
Though the debutant fell for just five runs in the first innings, he compiled an excellent 82 not out in the second innings run chase, and looked composed and tough. He also displayed more shots that Renshaw appears to have in his arsenal.
While there were naturally question marks over his initial low score, it’s hard to give his debut Test anything but a big tick, and the selectors should be afforded the same assessment for picking him.
Though Paine could only manage 14 runs with the bat, his keeping was exceptional. He was very tidy behind the stumps, highlighted by his impressive dismissal of Moeen Ali with a clever stumping, just when England were wrestling back some momentum on Day 4. His insistence of a review for a Stuart Broad caught-behind was another feather in his cap.
He’ll need to score runs to keep the wolves at bay, but he was so good with the gloves that the selectors earned themselves another tick.
Lastly, we come to Shaun Marsh, who only batted once in the game, but was part of the most crucial partnership – the one that helped set-up Australia’s first innings lead, and eventual win.
The 99 runs he put on with captain Steve Smith steered Australia out from the precarious position of 4-76, and when he fell the score was a much healthier 175. Marsh was patient, measured and occupied the crease. As ever – when he actually sticks around – he also looked great. Few batsmen are easier on the eye when scoring runs.
If you were being harsh – but not unfairly so – you would say that he still disappointed. His 51 runs before falling to a soft dismissal – caught meekly at mid-off from the bowling of Stuart Broad – remained the quintessential Shaun Marsh innings: he provided more than enough ammunition for both his fans and his critics.
However, he was the team’s second-top scorer, and he made his runs at a pressure-filled time.
That gives the Australian selectors a perfect three from three on their questionable choices. For that, they certainly deserve credit. In layman’s terms, they were right, and critics were wrong.
Yet if they feel that buys them some breathing room, they’ll be sorely mistaken.
With Glenn Maxwell banging on their door after scoring a scintillating 278 against NSW at North Sydney Oval, and the modern wicketkeeper needing to score runs, there will be no let-up in pressure from a public that enjoys questioning the selectors almost as much as it enjoys the actual cricket.
It’s first blood to the Australian selectors, but it’s early days in the biggest battle this summer.
Sam
Roar Rookie
I know, but my main points were that a) he's never had a decent crack at it - his longest stretch has been 5 tests, when he averaged 40, and b) people who keep bringing up the number of opportunities he's had seem to forget that he was often making way for returning injured players or he was injured himself, not being dropped due to form. Considering he's had a number of important innings - his sub-continent hundreds, 49 against the Kiwis under lights, this latest innings - I just find it bewildering so many people hate the guy.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
The DRS showed the umpires got it wrong with the LBW appeal by Cummins that they turned down against Root in the first dig and the LBW appeal by Anderson against Handscomb in the Australian first innings. Paine also urged Smith and Starc to ask for a referral for the faint nick by Broad that the umpires didn't see or hear. I think the DRS has caused a few blushes for the umpires but at least the right decisions are being made.
Gordon Smith
Guest
Marsh won the Adelaide day night test against NZ.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Appreciate the apology, and I'll return you the courtesy by saying: sorry, you're still not making any sense. Just when you appear to have understood the point of the piece, you appear not to. George Bailey scored 3 and 34 in his First Test. No one was saying the selectors were vindicated by his performance. Anyhoot, as you suggested, let's just move on. I clearly haven't gotten my point across to you, and vice versa.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
Its quite easy to draw that conclusion from what you've said Ryan. You've tried to have it both ways, by first saying the selectors have drawn first blood yet the calls could still be proven incorrect, and then juxtaposed that with your comments saying the players have performed, the team won, therefore criticism of the selectors is wrong. Ruling out all criticism is quite different in my eyes to winning the first round (your adjudication). I don't even think they won the first round. Honours are even IMO. "The selectors were for criticised for selecting those 3 players. Those 3 players performed, in a winning team. That makes criticism of the selectors wrong." You equated a 1-0 lead to the Aussies as a 1-0 lead to the selectors. I highlighted that if you applied that same logic to 4 years ago, the similarly contentious pick of Bailey would be vindicated. I'm unsure why that's so difficult for you to follow. "So you’re not scoring it 1-0 to the selectors? I guess it’s not 1-0 to the Aussies either then?" In isolation, one test match is rarely sufficient to judge. After failing in the first test, Bailey averaged 49.5 in the next two tests: these numbers look great, but lack context, and I agree with you that in the context of the whole series he underperformed. Paine's effort of 13 runs and a 50% strike rate on taking sharp chances (1 dropped catch and 1 stumping) does not equal a vindicating performance. SMarsh did more, but I'm still not comfortable saying he has vindicated the selection because of the context of his up and down history. On his own, perhaps, but you rolled him up with Paine who contributed less than Nevill did before he was dropped. Therefore, I do not score it 1-0 to the selectors. The jury is still out. I think this is pretty easy to understand. If you don't follow, I apologise for not explaining my contrarian position more thoroughly. But this is my last attempt - I have work I should be doing, and bid you adieu. :-)
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
“As I stated in my first post in this thread, look at George Bailey 4 years ago: by your logic, he should never have been dropped.” How? How? HOW? How did you arrive at that logic? How is that “my” logic? How does me saying the selectors picks for the First Test performed in the First Test, so they’ve drawn first blood, translate to the selectors retaining underperforming players?
Bunney
Roar Rookie
Did you take lessons in condescension Ryan? Or are you just a natural? I comprehend your article - you are giving some credit (1-0) to the selectors for picking Paine and SMarsh. I am unwilling to give that credit at this point. You judge the picks to have performed, I see a mixed bag of performance. I get it. I disagree with you. I can't believe you equate 1-0 to the Aussies as 1-0 to the selectors. How simplistic. As I stated in my first post in this thread, look at George Bailey 4 years ago: by your logic, he should never have been dropped.
Don Freo
Guest
Bring it on. As a player with much experience as an opener, Paine has a very good cut shot and hook.
Joe Bell
Roar Rookie
Could be the new cult hero. I'm very keen to see him take some stunners at short-leg off Gaz.
Don Freo
Guest
His average in this test was better than all of them. Let's hope he gets to play 29 Tests. That will mean he'll have played the whole series.
ethan
Guest
It's certainly an interesting technique Paine has got there. Wouldn't be surprised if England try to target him with the short ball a bit.
ethan
Guest
I heard Healy say Paine needed softer hands, which was probably true as it did clunk into the gloves, but it could also mean it flew off the edge quicker than expected. That would have put his timing out by a fraction, and thats all it takes when that close to the stumps.
ethan
Guest
Reckon the truth is somewhere in between here. It looked straightforward and yes he should have caught it, but the fact is when you're up at the stumps you have basically no time to react to any deflection. They either go in or they don't. When you consider it was an off spinner around the wicket, it makes it even more difficult with the changing angles. I would not say it was a sitter, but nor would I say it was exceedingly difficult. Somewhere in between. Its a forgivable drop.
Rob
Guest
He dropped a sitter in the out field and he failed to go on and covert. He looked very shaky and nervous for a supposed in form 34 yld with 29 Tests experience. Vince, Stoneman, Root and Malan all scored more and Moeen Ali looked far superior than Marsh against a far stronger bowling attack.
Don Freo
Guest
Whoops! Sorry Ryan. I should have recognized your trademark sharper edge in the comeback. BTW, on the basis of this match, Bancroft now sits second to Bradman. Better (even) than his mentor, Vogesy.
AREH
Roar Guru
Fair call I think. A bit like Hazlewood's dismissal of Vince in England's second inns; just a seriously great delivery that the batsmen couldn't do a lot about. You get a ball like that and you almost just walk off thinking; Oh Well, what more could I do? Certainly no shame in nicking a ball like that from Anderson; but he would've still been disappointed because he'd faced 40 or so balls and had nearly settled.
Rob
Guest
TB, no offense but you must have watched the highlights package after the WC games. If you watched Paine's innings he looked fairly comfortable until receiving an absolute jafa. Marsh was almost gone first ball nervously poking at one wide of off. He's the worst starter in test history. As for Renshaw, he totally turned the fortunes of the Australian side around. Fast player in bag green to 500 runs under 21. He was the reason Australia won a Test in India. He put them in a position to win the series if Warner doesn't drop the ball or the Marsh boys actually get some runs. Happy for Bancroft to be rewarded with selection but Maxwell should be in before Marsh. Marsh's selection is as blatantly bias as JT receiving CC in 2015 and Fafita not receiving the CC in 2016 IMO. Paine's catch was less than 50/50 for any keeper to stick. Less bat and he gloves it anymore and first slip has a good chance.
dave
Guest
Australia were in trouble in India and Maxwell scored a ton. In the easier Australian batting conditions Australia were in trouble and Marsh scored a fifty.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I have no problem with people - including you - disagreeing with me. But it's hard to disagree with me when you don't seem to even comprehend what you're disagreeing with. So you're not scoring it 1-0 to the selectors? I guess it's not 1-0 to the Aussies either then? And you're not judging a performance off one match? Well, considering there's only been one match, it's hard to do anything else, no? (Oh, and Don. It's me, Ryan - not Ronan!)
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
The selectors have picked a squad for the first two Ashes tests. How that squad performs and what injuries occur will determine what happens after the Adelaide pink ball test.