Warmup matches for touring Test sides in Australia have become nothing more than glorified centre-wicket practice. If that somehow wasn’t apparent before this cricket season, there is no longer any room for doubt.
The Cricket Australia XI squad currently taking on India at the SCG is as follows;
| Player | No. of first class matches |
|---|---|
| D’Arcy Short | 9 |
| Max Bryant | 0 |
| Sam Whiteman (c) | 50 |
| Jake Carder | 4 |
| Harry Nielsen (wk) | 7 |
| Param Uppal | 2 |
| Jonathan Merlo | 0 |
| Jackson Coleman | 2 |
| Harry Conway | 12 |
| Daniel Fallins | 4 |
| David Grant | 4 |
| Aaron Hardie | 0 |
| Chad Sammut | 0 |
| Aaron Summers | 0 |
| Ryan Hadley | 0 |
| Luke Robins | 0 |
| Total | 94 |
Put bluntly, this lineup is an insult to the touring side, offering precious little in the way of preparation for the upcoming Test series against Australia. Removing the relative experience of Sam Whiteman (who is still making his way back from a career-threatening finger injury) takes the average number of first class matches played down to a measly 2.75.
That Cricket Australia has the temerity to offer up such a green side for India’s only red-ball warm up match is staggering. And yet, the absurd inexperience of this group is completely by design.
CA’s reasoning is simple – it wants India undercooked for its duel with Australia.
It wants to ensure that India’s bowlers come into the first test not having dismissed any of Australia’s best first class batsmen with a red ball.
It wants to deny India’s top order the opportunity to face a local first class bowling attack that comes anywhere near the calibre of Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, Pat Cummins and Nathan Lyon.
Sadly, this tactic will surprise few cricket fans.
It is part of a broader development in international cricket whereby touring Test teams are being starved in terms of quantity and quality of warm up matches.
Quantity is affected by scheduling (a discussion for another day) but quality is completely in the hands of the relevant home cricketing body, and Cricket Australia is the clear frontrunner in a race to the bottom.
Although the other members of the ‘big three’, India and England, haven’t exactly been throwing their second XI at touring teams, they still generally serve up some something resembling decent opposition.
In July this year, India prepared for its Test series in England by taking on Division One County side Essex – a match which pitted the tourists against former test players Tom Westley and James Foster.
Less than 18 months earlier in India, the touring Australians faced an India A side featuring the likes of Rishabh Pant, Hardik Pandya and Shreyas Iyer.
Those who have been following cricket closely for more than the last few years will know that the concept of denying quality practice to sides touring Australia is quite new.
Look up New Zealand’s tour in late 2015 and you’ll find a CA XI that included Cameron Bancroft, Joe Burns, Usman Khawaja, Adam Voges, Shaun Marsh, Mitch Marsh, Ashton Agar, Peter Siddle, Jason Behrendorff and Billy Stanlake.
Two years earlier, England played four matches in preparation for the 2013/14 Ashes, including one against an Australia A lineup of Alex Doolan, Michael Klinger, Khawaja, Shaun Marsh, Callum Ferguson, Glenn Maxwell, Moises Henriques, Tim Paine, Ben Cutting, Trent Copeland and Jon Holland.
How does the current CA XI compare to those sides? Quite clearly, it doesn’t.
This is in no way intended to disparage the individuals selected in the CA XI. On the contrary; many of those picked show genuine potential.
A handful of them have represented Australia at underage level. D’Arcy Short has four One Day Internationals and 18 Twenty20 Internationals under his belt.
For a majority of the players, this will be one of the most memorable experiences of their lives.
Being chosen to take on the likes of Virat Kohli, Cheteshwar Pujara and Ravichandran Ashwin probably seems like a dream come true.
But that just reinforces why an opportunity like this should be earned, rather than being handed out for less-than-noble reasons.
Selection to take on touring sides used to be a genuine privilege. It was seen as an opportunity for players on the cusp of Test selection to push their case, or a moment for first class stalwarts to shine.
The CA XI, in its various guises, has a storied history that is now being tarnished by an unhealthy desire to gain the upper hand.
Whatever happened to the concept of wanting to beat the best team in a fair fight?
In 2018, Cricket Australia’s reputation sunk to a new low.
Rocked by ‘sandpaper-gate’, it handed out lengthy bans to three key players and launched the Longstaff Review into its own conduct in the lead-up to that fiasco.
The resultant report revealed a toxic culture that had been facilitated – encouraged, even – by those in charge.
This year was supposed to be a flash point; an opportunity for Cricket Australia to hit the reset button and rise above the ugly side of cricket.
They could have offered India Joe Mennie, Marnus Labuschagne and Marcus Stoinis.
Instead, amidst shallow platitudes about respect and fairness, Cricket Australia denied those very sentiments to India, all for the sake of manufacturing an artificial advantage.
The national team might be striving to put its most likeable foot forward but, within the walls of Cricket Australia HQ, the win-at-all-costs mentality is clearly proving harder to shake.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Thanks for the comment. As I've said above, I think we need to stop relying on the defence of 'this is what everyone else does' and actually set our own standard. The reality is that it's better for cricket to ensure both teams are as prepared as possible for the upcoming series. India's ordinary result in the match itself shouldn't have any bearing on what CA thinks is fair to offer as preparation for the tests.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Experienced or not, they rolled this Indian side for 350 odd then scored over 500 against what would be close to their test bowling line up. Included in this for the CA XI was one hundred and three plus 50 scores. Yes, it was an inexperienced side but as has been pointed out, most countries are sadly doing it.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Thanks JN! I'd love to see more A tours, in addition to more competitive warm up matches. I think they are a great way for aspiring international players to show what they can do against stronger opposition in less comfortable conditions. Kurtis Patterson (NSW) is one guy who has shown that he can score runs in foreign conditions. I'd love to see more of him outside of the Shield.
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Hi JamesH I have always enjoyed your comments and insight. I am an avid Proteas supporter , live in South Africa and have sadly never been to your fantastic country . I am apologetically a bit late to this discussion but felt I needed to put in a few cents worth....if we are to talk about lost opportunity re 2nd tier teams then we have to discuss the cancelled Aussie A tour to South Africa I am guessing about 14 months ago due to pay disputes etc. Here in SA the A side is massively valued so it was pretty dissapointing that this match up did not happen. I would go so far as to suggest that the embarrassing thumping the Aussie side suffered in the subsequent one day series was bit of a subsequence. The loss of confidence by Australia culminated in my own humble opinion in a home test series loss for Australia against a decent but not spectacular SA team. These 2nd tier matches must be taken seriously. Cheers.
JamesH
Roar Guru
It only means nothing because that's the value CA ascribes to it, DTM. See my post below. And I'm not advocating to pick has-beens, or to play in less ideal conditions. I'm advocating to pick guys who are striving to play test cricket, at a test-standard venue. Surely that's good for those players and for the standard of the upcoming series against India?
JamesH
Roar Guru
It's interesting that you say 'dropped'. That says a lot about how the perception of these matches has changed in only a short time. How quickly something once seen as an honour is now an inconvenience. These sides used to be treated as an 'A' team of potential test players. As recently as 2015 players were picked in a side like this as a reward for form in the Shield. This was once an elevation from the Shield - a stepping stone to the national side. The 2013 side I mentioned was even labelled as Australia A. It was played at the exact same time as a Shield round (6-9 Nov) and the players chosen were picked because they earned it. Eight of the XI have played at least one test since.
DTM
Guest
The shield comp is very tight and it would be a shame to disrupt it entirely for a match that means nothing. I wonder also if it is better practice for the touring side playing against a group of talented kids trying their hardest to impress both state and national selectors or playing against a bunch of former test cricketers who are well past their best and has little to prove to anyone? Certainly their fielding wouldn't be as sharp. I dislike the way the all of the test countries governing bodies presents these warm up games and maybe a Cam White as captain of the CAXI side would have been good. However, I think getting a feel for the conditions is the crucial part of the warm up matches. Had CA somehow offered a dust bowl that did not represent any of the test wickets this would have been a bigger crime. I'm happy to stick the boot in to CA whenever I get an opportunity but I don't think there is much of a case here.
Maxwell Charlesworth
Roar Rookie
I do think it would be a bit tough to pick FC players during the middle of a shield round. That could be scheduling issue but with the short gap between the T20's and the 1st test, this is the only reasonable time. I doubt many Shield players would be happy to be dropped from their Shield side where they are pushing for test selection to play a 14 a side game.
Maxwell Charlesworth
Roar Rookie
Wow!!! Constructive discussions!!!!!
Basil M
Roar Rookie
I didn’t think it qualified as classy, but thank you .
JamesH
Roar Guru
Agree with your points. The ICC should absolutely get its act together but unfortunately it’s basically controlled by the big three. I suspect that India would have performed better against ‘known’ opposition but as you’ve said, it’s up to them whether or not they want to get the most out of the game. An underwhelming opportunity is still better than no opportunity and I think they’ve squandered their hitout.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
That's fair enough. I absolutely agree with the ideal that Australia should be putting itself above the other nations. The problem is that it tends to put you at a disadvantage, which is a problem when the professional sports arena is as cut-throat and tightly competitive as it is. It's a failing of the ICC above any of the boards, and of professional sports as a whole. It may be semantics at this point but I will still argue that practically this isn't exactly an improper hit-out. Theoretically, could a stronger team have been offered? Absolutely, yes. But practically, what we've seen suggests two things: If the Indians weren't taking this match seriously, then there was much more benefit in blooding young up-and-comers against international-level opposition, rather than putting out higher status players against an opposition that couldn't be bothered. If they were taking it seriously, then the scorecard suggests that the competition is better than their number of FC caps would imply. No harm done, I apologise for correcting in such a pointed manner, I certainly could have been less aggressive with my comments.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere! My intent is not to paint Australia as THE bad guys. Other countries are to blame too. I think Australia is ‘leading’ the way but it doesn’t really matter whether I’m right or wrong on that point. The change has to start somewhere. Nothing is going to improve if everyone just keeps trying to one-up each other with poor warm up matches. In the context of a supposed effort to lift its game and show respect to opponents, CA had a great chance to set a new standard for itself by offering India a proper hit-out. Whether or not others decided to follow their lead is irrelevant. Australian cricket should be looking to set its own standards, not join the others in the mire. As for the ‘undue advantage’, my apologies for misinterpreting your meaning. But I don’t think it’s undue or an advantage at all. I think it’s just a sign of respect that’s well past due. I’d describe what CA has done here as a deliberate attempt to keep India at a DISadvantage.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
You know, I actually agree with you that the standards of warm-ups in all countries need improving. My issue is that you've reached and twisted the narrative to paint Australia as the bad guys when that isn't actually the case. Just like you had to reach with that comment. If Australia offered an invitational XI including Lyon, Zampa, Holland, and Agar as the bowlers, and played them on a manufactured dustbowl, would that count as a fair warm-up by your logic? Since, you know, the quality of players is apparently so much more important than anything else... Everyone here grasps your argument perfectly well, and it's flawed. You've completely overlooking aspects of touring that are more numerous and just as, if not more, important as the experience levels of the teams offered, simply because it doesn't fit the anti-CA narrative you're relying on. You're not even consistent with how important the players involved are, since you're hand-waving the actual match results. If CA brought in better players, what would actually change? If India can't be bothered to take this match seriously, how do you know that they would be more serious about other opposition (if they're actually not doing so, and it isn't just an excuse to hand-wave the poor performance)? You can go on all you like about subjective fairness and the cultural review or whatever, but from what we're seeing here, blooding younger up-and-comers is far more beneficial than putting out state players against a side that supposedly couldn't be bothered. Hint: undue =/= unfair. Undue means unwarranted. Doesn't mean I think that decent warm-ups are "unfair," since you'll note I didn't actually use that word. Yes, all the boards need to be better with tour matches. That's the ICC's job to collectively enforce, rather than making individual boards individually uphold different standards for arbitrary moral purposes.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Classy contribution there, Basil. And entirely untrue. Having a go at CA is hardly ‘Aussie bashing’.
JamesH
Roar Guru
By your logic we could offer them the Slab Road 3rd grade side, as long as they played at the SCG with a balanced team (by the way, last year England played a similar CAXI at Glenelg oval). No other country in the world offers up practice teams this deliberately inexperienced. In that sense, we are the worst offenders. You really don’t seem to have grasped what I’m saying here. This is not about what other sides are doing. It’s about CA matching its rhetoric by taking positive action, rather than trying to continuing the cycle. If everyone just decides not to offer decent competition because they won’t get it back then it will never change. The fact you call a decent warm up ‘unfair advantage’ says it all.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
How is Australia 'comfortably the worst offender' when we've provided a side that actually reflects a typical Australian team, as well as facilities and ground conditions that they will actually encounter on the tour? Do you actually think that Sri Lanka giving us a seam attack on a greentop is better than India playing at the SCG? Our 2015 England tour matches were on flat pitches against club bowlers. What did we then get when we played the Test team? No way are we 'comfortably the worst.' You can't put this much disproportionate focus on the quality of the players and then disregard the Indian player's performances. If they're not going to take the fixture seriously, then they're getting the opposition that they deserve. Why would you give opposing sides an undue advantage you know fully well you won't receive in turn, when it's the ICC's job (not CA's) to ensure that all the boards play fair?
Basil M
Roar Rookie
It’s ok, something has got up his nose...he’s been on a bit of an Aussie bashing run of late.
Matt P
Roar Rookie
Calm down, mate, tongue purely in cheek here.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Whoosh.