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.
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.
(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.
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.
(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.
Alex
Guest
Revisit this article Ryan - selection is not just about the Ashes and the awful Marsh selections are biting now. As I said at the time
Don Freo
Guest
My absolute favourite of all time. He taught me a side on action and the outswinger. He had such a powerful shoulder action that allowed him to hit the pitch really hard. He bowled such a heavy ball and always rushed the batsman.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
Hi Don. I think Dennis might give Garth a run for his money in terms of best bowling action. In fact they both had wonderful actions. Funnily enough when I was a young kid I modelled my bowling action on McKenzie. He had more of a skiddier action and a nice economical run up. Not a long tearaway action like Dennis. You would have to be an incredible athlete with a ton of stamina to keep running in like Dennis did. Would be great to see some old footage of McKenzie again. When I got older and taller I modelled my bowling action on Joel Garner. I loved the way he reached up just as he reached to bowling crease to get more bounce. And he had a similar length of run up as Garth. Funny how different cricketers can influence how we try to play the game.
Don Freo
Guest
Funny, because the first sentence you wrote, "Ryan, take it from someone that does it for a living that you don’t form an argument in a document then seek to soft-close it by telling anyone that disagrees with you that they are wrong" suggests that what you do for a living is the 'it' to which you refer, 'soft clos(ing)'. That's strange. You obviously meant something other than what you wrote. It's ok. My concern doesn't linger.
Porker
Guest
Are you seriously arguing that Shaun Marsh was picked over Lehmans son because of mateship and favouritism?!?
Felix
Guest
Quite the opposite and far from it, Don, but thank you for your concern.
JimmyB
Guest
Haha, if there's one thing we're good at...
Don Freo
Guest
Graham McKenzie, the best bowling action of all time. Alan Connolly the worst action of all time (worse, even than Maxi Walker). They were ok foils for each other, though.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
You're far too smart for me, so I won't argue too much. Mainly because I'm not really sure what your point is. What I will say is that selecting actually is an outcomes-based metric. Selectors are judged on the outcome of the result (the actual Tests) and of the outcome of their individual selections (the controversial selections). On both metrics, they have succeeded.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Far too humble!
JimmyB
Guest
Excuse my tardiness but I just wanted to congratulate the Aussie Roarers on regaining the Ashes, very well deserved. Unfortunately, your team was just too good and in Smith you have an absolutely ridiculous player, he was described by Michael Vaughan as a 'freak' and he kind of is, he's that much better than everybody else playing the game at the moment. I've only heard of one other person be described as a 'freak' by an England captain before and that was Jonah Lomu by Will Carling after the RWC Semi in 1995. Smith is bestriding cricket just as Jonah did rugby in those days. On top of that, you've got a really top bowling attack which is likely to be around for many more years (unfortunately). Congratulations to you all once again and have a very Merry Christmas.
Russell Neville
Guest
Thanks Ryan, eating humble pie is not easy and many of us are partaking at the moment. My concern about Mitch Marsh was not only his record but his batting technique looking very stiff and one dimensional a little like a poor version of Shane Watson. He always went hard at the ball and tried to play every thing on the front foot. But what we saw at the WACA was a great transformation and great faith and insight by the selectors. It says that the selectors are really looking at how the players are scoring not just results. It must be said that the selectors are privy to the personalities and perhaps the Marsh boys fit into the team environment just as Peter Nevill doesn't.
Brainstrust
Guest
There is a lot of hysteria around selection.The reality is Australia is constrained by not having any part time bowlers in its top 5 batsman, apart from the super reluctant Steve Smith. MAxwell the only time you can really justify selecting him with Lyon around is if they have a green wicket and want to go with a 4 man pace attack. Mitch Marsh there is no way you would be turning to him for wickets with the quality of Australia's pace attack at any point. So really its just a case of the candidates if you can't find a part timer you have to go for a batting alrounder who is not a great fit. The wicket keeping, it seems the Vics were lining up to chop Wade out of the state team and the mouth from the south is then thrown a lifeline in TAsmania otherwise it would have been really embarassing for the selectors . The ultimate irony of which it helps Paine because his batting is emphasised and that is more important than wicket keeping for the selectors. The real selection dilemna is really Australia has got so many good pace bowlers when they are all fit, rare though that might be.
Don Freo
Guest
Felix, do you 'soft close' for a living? You must be hungry.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
Aww more fanbois. And a liar to boot ("would have picked the same" bahahahahahahaha).
Felix
Guest
Ryan, take it from someone that does it for a living that you don't form an argument in a document then seek to soft-close it by telling anyone that disagrees with you that they are wrong. For the record I agree with you, the selectors won a series and the MMarsh selection was inspired. However to say that excluding or dropping a certain player was the right thing do applies an outcomes-based metric to a process that involves individualism. Let's say this - Student A passes all their subjects at 51%, they graduate with a law degree. Job done. Student B passes and gets 90% and a GPA of 7. On an outcomes based metric, they have both succeeded, however one is clearly superior in their craft - to use binary measures on far more complex positions oversimplifies the issue. Would Nevill have scored a truck load of runs and taken those catches? Perhaps, perhaps not. Would Maxwell have made 300 runs as some posit? Unlikely, but not impossible. To sum up my stance, 27 handicap golfers still make pars, it doesn't mean that they are ready to peg it up in the Masters.
Don Freo
Guest
Always behind Ian Brayshaw in the pecking order but he was a more than useful bowler. Remember, when you are a 5th, 6th or 7th bowler, you don't get long stints. The job is to hold up an end for a short while, often just before a break. Not a lot of opportunity to take wickets when batsmen are shutting up shop. Robbie Langer was another in that role in the next generation. We see that same thing with Mitch Marsh who gets 2 and 3 over spells. Don't expect massive wicket taking in those roles. That's not the brief. The numbers always look bad because stats never present a transcript of the match circumstances.
sheek
Guest
Don Freo, Thanks for those thoughts. Irvine took only one wicket in 42 first class matches for 120 runs. He must have bowled more often, & been more successful, in grade cricket.
Geoff from Bruce Stadium
Guest
Nice to reminisce but apart from Garth McKenzie and Alan Connolly the cupboard was pretty bare for fast bowlers back in the mid to late 60s. Dennis Lillee was a revelation when he debuted back in 71 against the Poms.
Adz Sportz
Roar Guru
Mitch Marsh's bowling was ineffective because the pitch was as flat as a road and he doesn't have much variation. But he did bowl at a decent pace, around 140 klicks and provided much needed relief for the main bowlers. He's been injured for months and has hardly bowled, he'll be better for the run