When the Test season wrapped up in Canberra this week, I mentioned the achievements of some Australian players. People promptly pointed out that they were only playing Sri Lanka.
Firstly, this was extremely useful information. I had been sitting at Manuka Oval for four days wondering why India had changed their emblem, their uniform, their colours, their entire squad, and their national anthem.
A shame, because for a minute the Canberra had sealed an epic 3-2 victory for Australia across six Tests. But the good citizens of the internet were there to correct that misconception.
Once we’d established who Australia had played, the implication was that any success didn’t count because they were Sri Lanka. Joe Burns with his opening-day innings of 180, Mitchell Starc’s 10 for 100: throw them all out.
(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
Sri Lanka, after all, was ranked a pitiful World No.6 on the ICC rankings. You know, one spot behind Australia at No.5.
But surely Sri Lanka were rubbish given what happened on the field? They lost the Brisbane Test inside three days, showing once and for all that they should be turfed out of the game for good. Right?
Except they lasted longer than Australia did in Galle a couple of years ago, getting bowled out to lose the match four overs after lunch on the third day. There were only four other losses since 1900 where Australia had faced fewer deliveries.
I was doing radio commentary in Galle and spent half the allocated match time on the beach. At that stage Australia was midway through being flogged up and down the island for a 3-0 whitewash.
Sure, the visitors at Manuka was under strength. A squad’s worth of fast bowlers were struck down as though a Singhalese Pharaoh had angered a vengeful deity.
But seven members of the XI from Galle also suited up in Canberra. It’s almost as though teams are not intrinsically poor, but can be battered in foreign conditions.
Of course there can still be a difference in the standard. There’s a reason that Australia scored four centuries in the Canberra Test compared to one century in the year preceding it.
But once you start discounting certain performances on that basis, you can find asterisks for probably nine out of ten Test innings. Poor bowling, flat tracks, junk time, in the ascendancy, blah blah.
He never scores in the second innings when the pitch is tricky. He only scores in the second innings when the match is decided. On it goes.
But whatever the opposition’s relative strength, walking out to play for your country never becomes easy.
“It’s Test cricket, isn’t it?” said coach Justin Langer after the match. “It’s the same pressure. We’ve got a really young group of blokes besides Uzzie and Nathan Lyon: trust me, it doesn’t matter who they’re playing against, they feel the pressure of playing Test cricket.”
Then there’s the matter of the numbers. If batting was easy, why were Australia three wickets down for bugger-all in both innings? Requiring the recovery in which the centuries came?
Because batting is in part a lottery. The worst park bowler to the world’s best batsman will, on a long enough timeline, get him out. Even the most modest Test-level bowler ramps up that degree of difficulty.
Batsmen are always more likely to fail than succeed. They’re more likely to not make hundreds than to make hundreds. There’s a reason that Steve Smith isn’t ending each of his Sydney grade games on 300 not out.
So in the overall scheme, the player who succeeds should have that achievement recognised. It’s probably easier to face Vishwa Fernando than Jasprit Bumrah. But players can also be dismissed by Alastair Cook.
When you watch Marcus Harris toe-end a slap straight to point, it shows that having the composure and concentration to build a hundred still counts, no matter the opposition.
(Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
Or put it this way: some Test hundreds are easier than others, but there are no easy Test hundreds.
It’s also worth noting that assessing quality is often wrong thanks to retrospect. Cricket produces victor and vanquished, from individual or team contests. They don’t all end up as close results, but that doesn’t mean whoever came out ahead found it easy.
It’s a perverse interpretation: you slog away to score a hundred or take a stack of wickets, then the very fact that you’ve succeeded is taken to mean the opponent was no good.
Take Jimmy Anderson, whose Ashes trip in 2013/14 returned some pretty ordinary numbers. What didn’t get any press was Australian batsmen insisting he had been the most difficult to face.
His cutters, seam position, subtle changes of angle and pace, constantly tested them out. They bested him, but battled hard to do it.
In the end, these Sri Lanka performances may not inform the first Test at Edgbaston in August. But that’s a matter of timing rather than opponent. It’s comical that so many Ashes squads are being debated on the back of what happened in Canberra.
Kurtis Patterson can make a newspaper squad named in February, but if he doesn’t make runs for New South Wales in February then he might not suit up for Australia A in June.
Harris has batted himself out of some speculative XIs for the moment, but whichever of he and Burns wins the race for first-class runs will probably be the one who makes it from here.
Or outside first-class cricket, it would not be at all surprising if a player compiles a couple of hundreds in the World Cup and finds himself in the Test team on form. Shaun Marsh, I’m looking at you.
But if runs or wickets from the Tests against Sri Lanka do end up being part of the reason that a player is picked, their effort doesn’t deserve denigration. At Test level, none of it is easy.
Waxhead
Roar Rookie
Well a few points for you to consider Geoff. 1) I've not heard anyone denigrate the Aussie batting performance in Canberra. 2) What I've heard and agree with is that there's no reason for anyone to be highly impressed by it or think it has any significance for the Ashes series. 3) It's a simple reality Aust were playing a Sri Lanka B team at home on a batting paradise. 4) Your article gives no reasons for anyone to think otherwise and it makes no real point at all that I can see.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Fair point about picking and choosing comparisons. I’d add that Harris’s second 70+ in Sydney was on the back of the worst shot and let off of the series in his 30s - a skied windy woof first ball from Jadeja that went within an inch of an outfield catch. To me, he looked lucky throughout the series and no surprise the worm turned vs Sri Lanka. I would see Burns’s 180 vs SL as confirmation of longer term class that has already been established.
Damien
Guest
Well Sri Lanka's level of performance is currently at a club level. Sad to say. However lets see how Australia perform against another team. Congratulations to all who performed well against SL. But best not to get too excited about the victory against Sri Lanka. There's just too much of issues there. Just saying.
RogerTA
Roar Rookie
And neither Herath nor Matthews performed as well in Oz as overall. I didn’t mean to wind this up again, just pointing out the the Sri’s lasting longer in Brisbane than Oz in Galle shouldn’t be sold short. And yes, this subject has been done to death.
anon
Roar Pro
If we're going to ignore a great innings because it was scored against a weak attack, then we similarly have to hold to account those players that failed against that same weak. Khawaja failed in the 1st innings when we needed him to stand up. Third ball duck if I recall correctly. He then scored a century in the second innings, but we were 500+ runs ahead when he scored it. Enough to save his hide, but as meaningless a hundred as you'll score. Similarly, Labuschagne failed miserably twice on the benign Manuka wicket against the supposed feeble attack. If we're not prepared to credit someone for succeeding against Sri Lanka, then we have to harshly punish anyone who failed against that same side.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
"Anyhow, Burns now has 4 Test centuries – does Harris look like scoring one?" I don't disagree about the relative merits of Harris and Burns. The manner of Harris' dismissals against SL were particularly poor, and disappointing given that he had demonstrated some potential against India (top scored at the SCG). With regard to with whether Harris looks like scoring a century, I thought he was a bit stiff in the first innings at Perth. He had cruised to 70 and was looking pretty comfortable when he got an unplayable delivery from the Indian part time spinner. It reared off a length only for Harris to fend it off his throat and was caught at slip. We'll never know if, but for the intervention of the pitch, he could have reached three figures.
mario lia
Guest
Fair point about the 250 that Harris scored in the shield against the NSW second string attack compared to what Burns scored 96 against an a grade Victorian attack. But also in the defence of Harris he did score a couple of scores in the 70"s against against an a grade Indian attack where burns 180 was made against below standard club cricket Sri Lankan attack. So if we charge scoring runs against certain attacks than those centuries that were made against Sri Lanka should not count for much as that is the point that you have made about Harris's 250 against NSW. Remember all those recent australian century makers were dropped early in their innings against Sri Lanka. Harris was the leading run scorer against India.
Adsa
Roar Rookie
James I heard he left the squad to head home to celebrate his birthday.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Well said, Geoff. But when you say it’s whether Harris or Burns wins the race for first-class runs - sorry, Burns won that contest long ago. He has a career average of 41 compared to Harris’s 35. That’s a much better predictor of long term success. Almost zero Australian batsmen have succeeded in Tests with an FC average like that. As you say, batting is in part a lottery, a matter of chance when you get the edge or the unplayable ball. Over time it evens out, but don’t get too carried away over a couple of innings, even 3 or 4 matches. Stick with quality. And don’t pick people on the back of 250* against an attack comprised of Sams, Edwards, Fallins and Copeland. For me Burns’s 96 in tricky conditions against Siddle, Tremain, Pattinson, Boland and Holland was a far more telling innings, I don’t care whether it was 3 figures. Anyhow, Burns now has 4 Test centuries - does Harris look like scoring one?
James
Guest
Sri Lanka, after all, was ranked a pitiful World No.6 on the ICC rankings. You know, one spot behind Australia at No.5. Yes that's a very conveniently worded comment. True, they ARE only one-spot behind Australia. But they're also nearly 20 ranking points behind, whereas we are only 3 ranking points behind No.4 New Zealand. I mean technically speaking, Usain Bolt only runs the 100m "a few seconds" quicker than me, nevermind that as a percentage it makes a world of difference! Because batting is in part a lottery. The worst park bowler to the world’s best batsman will, on a long enough timeline, get him out. Even the most modest Test-level bowler ramps up that degree of difficulty. Yknow I think the most interesting stat from the Sri Lankan series was the number of games that their fast bowlers had played. At one point, cumulatively, their entire fast bowling squad had played 10 test matches. The batsman (who were in the squad at the time) played under the same conditions as they played against India...except the difference here was that the men averaging 20,25,30 runs suddenly started hitting 100,125,150. Pretty clear distinction in quality of the attack
Jacko
Guest
One question Geoff....If you were making your international debut in Aus would you rather take on India or Sri Lanka?........Of course it makes a difference who you are successful against and it is 100% easier against a weaker nation....You still have to work hard and still have to get the basics right but its definately easier to do that against a weaker nation in conditions that suit you rather than them....Pretty basic really....Why do you think a century at club level is not regarded as highly as a century at test level? Because of the strenth of the opposition.....Simple...second silly arguement in a week
jameswm
Roar Guru
Did I hear he left the test squad for mental health reasons?
Nick
Roar Guru
The bowling by Australia in Canberra was excellent. Coupled with the fact that some of the Sri Lankan batsman clearly hadn't been prepared for pace and bounce...they needed a better tour match than what they got. they don't record stats on this, but I can't remember a series where 4 batsman had to retire hurt, and this was only a two test series. Sri Lanka frankly weren't up for the challenge.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Geoff, great and timely article with excellent points. Paragraphs 2 & 3 are stuff of legend, loved it..
Dcd
Guest
Pretty special bowling effort to get Sri Lanka out twice for 200 then. Given how flat the pitch was.
Mario Lia
Guest
If Will Pucovski can play the last 4 shield games subject to his mental health issues, and he scores another couple of big hundreds in which he has already proven that he can do that, should he be picked for the ashes squad? He has the talent and has the ability to make big scores and bat for a long time. If he is good enough his age and lack of experience should not count against him being picked for the ashes squad. The only issue is his mental health issues if they happen again before the end of the shield season. Based on his ability, technique, temperament and class he should be picked in the squad? Also the same applies with James Pattinson if he plays the last 4 shield games, takes wickets and is fit, he should also be picked for the Ashes squad.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The injury is a worry, but he was definitely bowling better in the test against Sri Lanka. Got the radar working better. Interestingly I noticed that a lot of the time he was bowling the ball with a nice upright seam but pointed to swing in to the Sri Lankan lefties. Generally he's been a bowler who would angle the seam for the inswinger to the right-handers, as is pretty normal for left-arm quicks. Not sure if that was a change in action in some way, or if he's been working to the point where he can get the seam pointing each way. I certainly saw Cummins bowling with the seam pointed beautifully in both directions at different times. So he looks like he should be able to get a Dukes to swing both ways when they get to England.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I suppose you could say that the main area weakened in the Sri Lankan team was the bowling. So therefore you could say that helped the batsmen out. But the batting lineup wasn't that different, and therefore, Starc should still get more credit for his 10/100 on a road against a reasonably settled (if not amazingly good) test batting lineup than he's mostly got.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Before the Sri Lankan series I really thought it likely that Burns would likely just be in for 2 tests with Warner / Harris being the likely opening pair for England. But the way Harris kept throwing his wicket away against Sri Lanka in ugly ways, combined with the fact that he regularly threw his wicket away after making a start throughout the summer, combined with Burns making the big hundred, may swing it Burns way. Still not convinced about Burns, he tends to push forward to the outswinger and is in big danger of getting lots of nicks against Anderson and co in England.
Nick
Roar Guru
Geoff, You're right... we shouldn't discount runs made by this and that, against this and that in this and that condition. Although, there's many roarers on this website who'll look for any excuse to diminish the results of Murali and Sangakkara but yet gleefully bask in the delight of Head and Burns' century. I'll admit to chucking on an asterisk for the 4 centuries - particularly Khawaja's - only because it's important Australia doesn't view this as "problem solved". The bare fact remains that Australia scored centuries only when the pitch was flattest of all the pitches this summer, and against a demonstrably inferior attack to a class Indian battery. I was still deeply concerned that even in such friendly conditions, Australia was STILL 3/not many in both innings.