T-Paine worth more than just runs to the baggy greens

I agree that the best choice it to continue with Paine until Smith is eligible to captain again, then reinstate his captaincy, unless the current management team really don't think that he has learned from his time out of the game. I think Khawaja is maligned for his Junior-like laconic nature, which sometime comes across as a lack of effort.

IAP, I think your comment must be the most ill-informed of all the current banter. Tim Paine's principal job is to Captain the Australian Team, on field and off field, give those short order TV interviews, work on team structure and logistics and suggest to the selectors his opinion on team make up. His second task is as wicket keeper and he is one of the world's best. He needs to rely on top order batsman to get runs while his mind is clogging everything else. I think he is shaping up to be one of Australia's greatest captains. Learn the Game and play it body, heart and spirit like the best do then you might appreciate greatness.

G'day David and thanx for the nice article, some good points to muse on. I cannot see any way that Tim Paine will be dropped or lose the captaincy. However even Paine has admitted what you you have noted "The Australian captain used his bowlers poorly when his side required just one wicket to retain the Ashes, ..." For mine, Paine's biggest error was his dependency on the quicks, even though it was a warm sunny 4th day wicket which was pretty dead by then, and refusal to try other options. I kept wondering all that 4th day why M.La Bus Change wasn't brought on to bowl into the bowler's marks at the leftie B.Stokes. Labuschagne had a 4 over spell near the end of the 3rd day at right handers J.Root and J.Denly and only went for 11 runs, so it wasn't like he was flogged or a rubbish bowler. After that he was used just for 2 overs (the last over to end the 3rd day and lunch on the 4th day). There were some really scuffed marks just outside of Stokes' offstump and a large patch about 2 metres in front. Get Labuschagne to aim at that spot, he isn't a big turner but has good length control. They just needed one ball to spit out of that rough high or at a weird angle and Stokes was in trouble. Perhaps Paine was frightened of the right hander J.Bairstow having a slog, but even that was with risk. As soon as J.Root and J.Denly got together, it was obvious (a) The Weather God had put his/her/it's hard-earned on England to win and (b) England intended to bat long, long and even longer on the dead pitch and wear out the 3-man Oz pace bowlers. Stokes even played that role, (was his first 3 runs off 70 balls?) and it worked to an absolute treat. Even before Bairstow came out you could see J.Hazelwood and P.Cummins were bu99ered, their run-ups were through thick treacle with a concomitant loss of accuracy. I was astounded that Labuschagne was not asked to bowl at all in the afternoon session. A rested Hazelwood got a couple of early wickets after lunch and was spent, the poor bloke could barely throw his arm over. But Paine was welded to his quicks wiping out the England tail; he didn't even use Labs to rest his knackered "strike" bowlers. Paine has to learn, what works in Tassie doesn't quite work on a hot 4th day in North England. To me, this was Paine's folly, far worse than the ridiculous "hope against reality" DRS off Cummins' late in the match.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Ashwin also has had documented problems against Nathan Lyon in particular

There's nothing much to say. Pain's captaincy was diabolical in the third test. It was also obviously diabolical with 60/70 runs to go but no-body stepped in OR, he listens to nobody. Either way, his days must be numbered, you just can't accept that outcome... there needs to be a better response than 'get over it and move on'. As far as I'm concerned, Pain's job now is linked to the Ashes result.

AB, So the selectors are wrong. Will you apply when one of them quits ?.

For years now the whole cricketing world has all been in agreeance that a keeper must contribute with the bat (Bairstow, De Kock, Pant etc the list goes on). Paine is not in this category. Nowhere near it. His batting isn’t any better than Pat Cummins or the other tail Enders. His glove work is solid I’ll pay that, but that alone gets you in an Australian side? I think not. His Leadership tbf has rightly been called in to question, and so it should be. Shocking captaining in that 3rd test, but also smacked of arrogance. His plan was not working, but he would not change. And that is not indicative of a good captain. He should not be getting picked because “he’s the best captain”. What a load. Peter actually is right, he is holding the team back.

I remember India being 6/127 in the first test at Adelaide. Ravi Ashwin has well documented problems with pace. Paine keeps Lyon on and has no short leg with the quick operating at the other end. Ashwin makes 35 in a 62 run partnership and India win by 35 runs. He has consistently got his bowling changes and field placements wrong during his 11 tests as captain.

It’s been a real credit to all the players that they’ve been able to put Capetown behind them and get on with the business of playing cricket again, together. There’s a genuine sense that team culture has improved, and that includes the attitudes of Smith, Warner and Bancroft. While they all seem to have moved forward in a positive direction, many of us appear stuck, and are happy to remain there. As I see it, the whole point of a two year ban was not only to keep the option of re-appointing Smith as captain available, but also to ensure that people could acknowledge that a seriously significant penalty had been served and that he had “done the time”. While you can never please everyone, I think the idea was to satisfy the average reasonable cricket fan, being us. Key stakeholders in the game. No one can deny that, whatever an affront it was to the nation’s psyche that we’re not holier than thou compared to other cricket nations, it was a very serious ban and the harshest of its kind handed out by any cricket board for a similar offence. There will always be people who refuse to forgive Smith and who won’t come to peace with it because that’s a choice. However, it’s also a choice to accept that when someone’s served the time, serious time, been seriously penalized financially, professionally and in terms of damage to reputation, as well as having shown genuine contrition, it’s available to us to move on, even if we don’t fully forgive. No one will forget it. Maybe we can live with it, at least. I really don’t see why Cricket Australia should be held captive to any kind of sentiment which can’t get to that point. It’s already done everything that could be reasonably asked of it to try to rectify the situation and deliver an outcome that tried to get the balance right in terms of both punishing Smith & co and allowing them him to restore their careers. Other countries were pretty amazed by the severity of the penalties, some people wanted them banned for life. I think most people were pretty comfortable with the penalties, and the players still have a future. They got it pretty right. The whole process of selecting both players and captains has to be merit-based. Putting Head forward on merit is entirely appropriate. Putting him forward because he isn’t Smith isn’t. Smith has to earn it back on merit too, and so far he’s doing a great job. If the selectors are trying to avoid putting him forward, then as I see it they’re part of the same problem, of remaining tethered to Capetown. We have to move on, and now’s the time.

The headline for the Brettig article is "Usman Khawaja for Australian Captain. Why Not?". The trouble with why not arguments is that they so often arise from a failure to properly justify the why. The immediate question is why he wasn't made vice captain in the aftermath of Capetown. Surely that that was the moment when we needed senior players to step forward. I recall that players had a lot of input into the appointments of Mitch Marsh and Hazlewood. Then it switched over to Head and Cummins for the Sri Lanka series. Still no Khawaja. Then the's the matter of performance. Since the high water mark of his defining 85 and 141 against Pakistan in the 1st Test he hit a merit worthy 72 against India in Perth, 101 not out against a pretty threadbare Sri Lanka attack, but otherwise 262 from his 16 other innings at a 17.46 average. In that time his Test average has dropped from 44.58 to 40.66 in 10 Tests. Although not quite into Shaun Marsh territory, whose average fell from 40.87 at Durban to 34.32 at the SCG against India in just 9 Tests, a 4 run drop in Test average is still concerning. Probably due to him having seven sub 10 scores across those 9 Tests compared to Marsh's 10 across 10 Tests, and those two good scores compared to Marsh's solitary 60 against India in Adelaide in all that time. Khawaja seriously needed that ton against Sri Lanka to bolster his position. He's done little since. It's been like Shaun's decline, in slower motion. Not fatal, but he's now on the brink of a sub 40 Test average for the first time since his 10th of 44 Tests back in November 2015. His place in the Test team is obviously now vulnerable. Inescapably, the why not argument made for Khawaja seems to have only one basis: the anti-Smith sentiment. Because if it weren't for that, can anyone credibly claim why they would put Khawaja forward as a possible Test captain? It's a distraction for those yet to move on from Capetown. At least there's a basis for thinking of Head as a possible captain given his age and possible long tenure in the side, depending on how things play out over the next 9 Tests. It's preferable if there are several credible options, but whether people like it or not, Smith is one of them and the only one unless Head really consolidates his spot. Here's hoping he does, whichever way the captaincy goes. Khawaja too, but for him the focus should be limited to simply holding his spot in the side. Even that's looking dicey given that he's now in a tussle with Harris just to hang in there.

I have said a number of times that I really feel like the selectors are desperately hoping Head can make himself into a fixture in the test team because I reckon they would really like the idea of not going back to Smith as captain if they can help it, but there aren’t a lot of viable options at the moment. If Head falls in a heap, Smith will probably get the captaincy back. If he is able to become a good test player, I still think he is a great chance of being the next captain. But some things about Smith in the Ashes so far have just made me wonder if he might end up getting the job back after all.

redbackfan, I should not post this as it is a bit nasty, but I could not resist. I assume that redbackfan means you follow the SA shield side. I see they finished last in the shield with no wins (tassie did not do much better with 3 wins admittedly). And your AFL teams failed to make the finals. SA sport in the doldrums. If you are not from SA I apologise.

Chris, I disagree. You can have my name, address and phone number if you think I am hiding behind anonymity to throw stones, it is my view that he should not be considered for captaincy again. As I said previously I'm not interested in what happened with other players this is what these 3 did and Smith having knowledge of what was to happen before the act and not stopping it is enough to disqualify him from a leadership position again. He is of course free to become one of the greatest batsmen to ever play the game and I hope he does. We need him! Your last sentence is your view and I don't share that. We'll see which way CA views it in the fullness of time, I suspect they will appoint him captain again but I don't view it as a certainty.

redbackfan, Oh and by the way I am still waiting for your cricket record experience and knowledge. If it is good I would commend you.

redbackfan, If I said to you you know nothing about cricket and go back to knitting socks for Carey, I am sure you would considered that vicious. And I am entitled to be on the site as much as you. How dare you say I should not be on the internet.

good for you champ, if you think that was vicious, the internet is not the place for you!

redbackfan, I also coached both cricket and soccer teams.

redbackfan, to follow up on my posting which you may not have received. As for my knowledge of cricket I played A grade cricket in Launceston (the top league) when I was 15. I did give it away when I was 17 to concentrate on soccer, in which I represented Tasmania in games against Victoria, and played for Northern Tasmania in many intrastate games. I returned to cricket when I was 35, playing for a team in a league just below A grade. I played till I was 45, and represented that league in games against other leagues. I also captained the side in many games. I averaged 48.6 in over 100 games mainly in 40 over games. You will say I am bragging and what has this got to do with anything. Your vicious comment that I know nothing about cricket (and soccer) and go back to knitting socks is beyond belief.

redbackfan, After checking I did say stumpings, obviously meant to say catches.

redback, I believe I said catches off Lyon not stumpings, and they were in the first test. (my error). Your derogatory comments are vicious and if I want to comment on this site I have as much right as you. As for my knowledge of cricket I was playing in the A grade competition in Launceston (the top competition) at 15 years of age, and played representative games in another league. How dare you state I have no idea of cricket. Give me your record. If it distinguished I will commend you.