The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Australian selectors versus the critics? It’s a bloodbath

18th December, 2017
Advertisement
Aussie skipper Tim Paine (AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
Expert
18th December, 2017
138
3739 Reads

A few weeks ago, I wrote that the real battle this summer might be between the Australian selectors and ‘armchair critics’.

I added that after some excellent performances by the selectors’ most controversial selections in the First Test, the score was 1-0 in that clash.

Well, we can call off the fight now. A ‘mercy rule’ needs to implemented and used, because it’s an absolute bloodbath: the selectors have won, and won convincingly. It’s over. The fat lady isn’t singing – she’s already at home having a cup of tea before bed.

What’s amusing is that there are some critics unwilling to wave the white flag and admit defeat. No, seriously! So let’s put that one to bed straight away: the selectors were right, critics were wrong. If you argue otherwise, you’re just being stubborn and silly.

[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]

At it’s most basic, the role of the Australian selectors was to pick a team that would win the Ashes this summer. With two Tests still to be played, that objective has already been achieved, and been achieved fairly comprehensively. It’s 3-0 to Australia, yet even that scoreline flatters England, who have been heavily outplayed in all three Tests.

On that metric alone, the selectors should be deemed to have done their job and won the ‘battle’.

Yet where they can rightfully feel exceptionally smug is in the performances of the players they copped flak for picking.

Advertisement

Shaun Marsh has been much maligned throughout his career, and his name appearing in the starting XI for the First Test caused nothing short of an uproar, placing the credibility of the selectors squarely on the line. Marsh repaid their faith with a crucial half-century in Brisbane, and a match-winning unbeaten century in Adelaide.

Shaun Marsh

(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)

Wicketkeeper Tim Paine was the other controversial pick at the start of the series, but – like Marsh – he vindicated the selectors decision almost immediately in Brisbane, with some sterling glovework and important reviews that led to big wickets. He continued to be excellent behind the stumps in Adelaide, and also added a knock of 57 runs, before having another very good Test in Perth, including 49 not out in Australia’s lone innings.

Not content with being up 2-0 in the series, the selectors made a change for the Third Test, and brought back all-rounder Mitch Marsh; he of the worst record of any Test number 6 in history.

It was another bold move by the selectors, and another one that was proved right, as Shaun’s younger brother responded to his intensely questioned recall by finally showing his potential with an extraordinary 181 runs in Australia’s first innings reply to England.

So not only is it 3-0 in the Ashes, but the selectors are an impressive three from three on their biggest calls.

Full disclosure: I was completely against the selection of Shaun Marsh and thought it utter madness he was being chosen once again. I may have even suggested the selectors should lose their jobs if he failed.

Advertisement

I also certainly wouldn’t have chosen Tim Paine. Though I felt nowhere near as strongly about it as I did the recall of Shaun Marsh, I would have opted for Peter Nevill.

By the time the Mitch Marsh selection came about, I wasn’t game to publicly deride it, but it’s fair to say I was dubious. However, the selectors had earned the benefit of the doubt by then.

Well, I believed they had anyway, though in some circles they’re still not getting the credit they deserve.

When Shaun Marsh delivered in Brisbane, there were some comments that Glenn Maxwell “would” have scored more runs. There’s nothing quite as ridiculous as fighting the fact Marsh scored runs with the hypothetical that Maxwell would have scored more.

When Mitch Marsh went big at the WACA, the selectors were said to be “lucky”. It’s an adjudication you’re certainly allowed to make, as long as you’re consistent and say they’re “unlucky” when a player you did want picked gets our cheaply. That sentence even felt absurd to type.

Advertisement
Mitch Marsh

(Photo by Philip Brown/Getty Images)

Others have claimed England have played poorly, which has made the selectors ‘gambles’ look better than they are. Which, again, is just ridiculous. Firstly, it’s those very players that have made the English play poorly.

Secondly, you can only play what’s in front of you, and the selected players have performed. It’s that straight forward.

Lastly, Paine’s selection continues to be criticised in some quarters as the selectors “making a mockery” of the Sheffield Shield, as he wasn’t even keeping for his state at the time. While I actually understand that sentiment, if the selectors honestly didn’t feel any of the Shield gloveman were playing up to standard, surely it’s not just their prerogative, but their responsibility, to think left-field? I actually believe that’s really good selecting, and what they should get paid for.

Irrespective of what you originally thought of the selectors’ big decisions this summer, you simply can’t deny they got them right.

If you are of the opinion the selectors haven’t been vindicated, or even still believe they were wrong, I’d suggest that you take the humble pie they are currently serving, warm it up, and scoff it all down. I certainly have.

It may hurt to swallow it – and your pride – but it will taste a lot better than the senseless stew you must otherwise be eating.

Advertisement
close