I’ve often been critical of Australia’s selectors, and still think they’re pretty terrible.
Greg Chappell and Justin Langer I’ve written about; Trevor Hohns has been coasting on the achievements of Laurie Sawle for over two decades now, can he please leave?
But in this series they were less terrible than Ed Smith of England, whose belief in his own genius ensured his side lost the Ashes.
Australia’s selection policies had their horrible, cliquey moments. These included refusing to pick Joe Burns in the squad, ignoring Glenn Maxwell for the Australia A game, picking Mitch Marsh in the squad and bending over backwards to shove in Cam Bancroft. On the whole however they did get their basics right.
To wit, they picked six specialist batsman, a specialist keeper and four good bowlers.
It can’t have been easy – lunatic fringers were pushing for wild and wacky concepts like picking five bowlers and Alex Carey as a specialist batsman.
There was also the ever-strong Marsh lobby, angling for Mitch Mitch at six, despite him having done nothing to deserve selection on the tour in the first place (the argument seemed to go along the lines of “well if we’d had him in the World Cup we would have won”, “he’s such a good bloke” and “Ben Stokes is really good and he’s the player closest to Ben Stokes”).
This lobby seems to include a number of Fox Sports journos as well as Trevor Hohns – another reason to give Trev the boot.
But they held their nerve.
I didn’t like the selection of Bancroft or Labuschagne (I would have preferred Burns and Maxwell) but at least they did have English first class runs to support their place on the squad. The selectors noticed first class form.
They showed faith in veterans who’d done the job in the past – Steve Smith, Dave Warner, Usman Khawaja – and their new fighter, Travis Head. No one could guess how badly Warner would go or how well Smith would go but both deserved a shot. So too did Khawaja and while it’s a drag he’s dropped he can’t get too stroppy about it. It made sense.
Steve Smith – a shrewd selection from the Aussie panel. (Photo by Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)
Most importantly, they picked a specialist at six, which proved crucial in the second innings of the first Test, when Matt Wade’s 110 took Australia from a slim lead to a crushing one. His second innings of 33 in the third Test stalled a collapse and helped set up what should have been a victory if not for Stokes’ genius.
His fourth Test second innings of 34 ensured there was no way England were getting in the game.
True, Wade hasn’t locked down his position – Trevor Hohns, who has a history of silly comments about Wade, seemed to float the option that he’d be dropped after the third Test – but he did alright and at least if he does get dropped it’ll be because he doesn’t score runs, and he won’t be protected not scoring runs because he can pick up the odd wicket.
Our selectors were also smart with the bowlers. They listened to Andrew McDonald’s recommendations about James Pattinson and only played him in two Tests (showing they’d learned from ignoring the Victorian coach’s advice on Aaron Finch ‘s batting position last summer).
They held off picking Mitch Starc who, fine a bowler as he is, is a run leaker – and run leakers are the main things that cost us the 2009 and 2015 Ashes.
They picked Siddle who is extremely experienced in English conditions and a sensible bowler, not an “aw gee mum look at the speed gun” dude.
They weren’t completely smart – I still think it was a mistake not to pick a second spinner, Lyon’s injury has showed how risky that is – but pretty smart.
A lot smarter than England.
Ed Smith is a clever man, perhaps too clever by half. He likes weird and wacky selections – I’m sure there’s a science to it if you asked him but from a distance most of it seems to be good ole gut feel.
When gut feel selections work out the selectors look like geniuses, which has the flow on effect of more gut feels and ultimately the team keeps losing and they can’t figure it out.
The biggest weakness of the English side was their terrible, terrible batting. Yes, I know Smith was touched by the gods this series, but England could have rammed home their advantage in the first innings of the first Test and didn’t, the second innings of the second Test and didn’t, and the first innings of the third Test and didn’t (they were saved by a once-in-a-generation innings).
Decent batting could have ensured a comfortable draw in the fourth Test and didn’t.
For some reason Ed Smith has a hard on for specialist English batters who average well below 40 in first class cricket – Jason Roy (37), Joe Denly (36), Joss Buttler (32). He – or rather Root and Bayliss – compounded this by batting Roy then Denley as openers even though they aren’t first class openers because apparently first class cricket doesn’t count.
I’ve heard from some observers, who clearly can’t use Google, that these were the best options out there. Can someone explain how they are better than Hazan Asad (FCA of 51), Dominic Sibley (38), Sam Northeast (39), Chris Dent (38), Ben Duckett (39), Ben Brown (40), James Hildreth (43), Nick Browne (40), Steven Davies (39), Ben Foakes (39), Daryl Mitchell (39), Liam Livingstone (40), Ollie Pope (60), Michael Burgess (39).
Absolutely first class averages shouldn’t be only guide – figures can be inflated (especially when a player is starting out), you also have to look when the runs are scored, all that stuff. I also acknowledge some players with great averages have been found wanting at Test level eg Gary Ballance (Ollie Pope doesn’t count because he batted out of position). But they’re a pretty good guide.
The most successful new specialist English bat was Rory Burns who averages 42… and he was ignored by the selectors for years despite strong , consistent first class form because the selectors had visions of low 30s-averaging players like Keaton Jennings, Sam Robson, Haseeb Hameed and so on, magically transforming into Jack Hobbs.
Smith did replace Moeen Ali, who averages over 30 with the bat, with Jack Leach, who has a FCA of 11, but I believe this was compensated for by picking Archer, who averages 30 with the bat.
Incidentally he has an excellent first class record – his Test success wasn’t that shocking. With Rashid Ali not available Leach was clearly the next best spinner… but you need an all rounder at eight to counter balance Stokes (genius yes but batting average of 35).
Where he went wrong was replacing Woakes (batting FCA of 30) with Craig Overton (20), instead of Sam Curran who averages around 30 with the bat. England’s batting is weak and this made it weaker.
England’s Sam Curran (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
I get they wanted to reward Roy for superb ODI form. He deserved a shot but in his usual position not a made up one.
Buttler has played some fighting innings but his record is not good enough for a specialist.
And Denly has no business being in the side.
All three players should be dropped. I’m inclined to go experience – Sibley, Northeast, Hildreth or Foakes – but if they want to go youth there’s Asad, Pope and Livingstone.
And if they don’t want to pick Woakes then replace him with Curran.
Compare it with Australia’s recent selections of Bancroft, Labuschagne, Head and Wade. They all have first class averages of near 40. The first three didn’t for a while, but their averages have steadily increased and Wade has been remarkably consistent.
In contrast Mitch Marsh was selected in the Test top six with a FCA of 21… it has increased but is still only 31.6… and people wonder why we kept collapsing overseas when he was in the team.
Picking on first class form is not a perfect method. But it’s a lot of a hell better than the method England are trying.
Until they figure that out they’re just going to shuffle deckchairs on the Titanic.
RobMelb
Guest
Good article but the key point is that we haven’t won the Ashes, not yet. We’re actually in real danger of drawing the series.
Josh H
Roar Rookie
Probably wouldn't have picked him for this series, but a Test ton in India takes a heck of a lot of ticker
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
Mints anyone?
danwain
Roar Rookie
Very true, hahaha, i retract my comment
El Loco
Roar Rookie
Oh no, you must be at rock bottom now... Hang in there, we're all in it together :crying: :laughing:
J.T. Delacroix
Guest
Slightly off topic, but I’ve noticed that Monty Panesar & Steve Harmison have joined forces in claiming that Smith is a disgrace to the game & that he deserves no credit. That’s rich coming from two of the most useless bowlers to have ever played the game!
Rick Wallaby
Roar Rookie
Sorry. You lost me at the mention of Maxwell. IMHO Hohns & co got that one right.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
I said if it was the other way round in a situation where England had retained the Ashes at 2-1 and one to play....
Gurlivleen Grewal
Roar Pro
Stephen, thanks for the post. You have covered the selection bit eloquently. But while there is a definite error from Ed Smith and co, it has been like this for years now and has brought them success. England has been successful at home because they stack their team with bats up to 9/10. What didn't work this time was that the pitches were balanced and weren't lopsided entirely towards bowlers. Anderson said that the home advantage went missing this series like say vs India - which were a lottery, with tosses dictating the outcomes. On such pitches, bowlers like Sam Curran turn into pretty good bowlers, and anyone who can wield the willow at 8/9 against tired/in-experienced parts of a bowling attack can give a decisive edge. The pitches this series dictated that they didn't even play Curran, the Man of the series from the 4-1 win over India. So while the personnel are the same, the underlying conditions - the pitch and this new batch of balls ( going soft, doing less in the air) has changed. The tradition of not picking promising test players has been an old one and since Bayliss has taken over, it has been a constant. They also waste a decent system of picking England Lions from the best county players with poor management and limited opportunities at the top level. Add to that the decay of 4 day cricket at the league level with more prominence given to the hundred, T20s, ODI cricket. England has a mentality problem too. While Aus stood up and counted their mistakes in the third test, acknowledging them head-on as they did with their traditional bowling plans of just bowling fast, the English were still stuck at 120/8 in the first test. Even now they claim that there were moments and the series could be 3-1 and that Root's captaincy is all good. They truly wasted a 2-1 defeat to Windies as a wake-up call. They will continue to blame the pitches and "ill-fortune". More than the Aussie selection, I commend the methods of patience, line and length over pace, magic deliveries and that gave then the decisive edge. While batting, all batters were looking to be patient. So the selection which worked against an inexperienced Indian attack, an equally flawed batting lineup didn't work against a well-rounded, methodical and well-rotated Aussie one and the one with Smith being twice as good as Kohli.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
I still feel he was picked too early. It's paid off but a lot of time these selections don't pay off - look at Renshaw, he was rushed into the test side and he's really struggled since.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
Thanks for your nice words and I'm totally aware I talk too much about Mitch Marsh but they just keep picking him. The favouritism is relentless and unjustified and just depresses me especially when he has such a big lobby still pushing for him.
Stephen Vagg
Roar Guru
damn right! :)
danwain
Roar Rookie
Well if it was the other way it would still be all to play for, because if Australia won at the oval we would retain the ashes
JohnB
Guest
While I agree with a number of the things you say, I think you've caught a dose of what has been wrong with English selections for quite some time, even before Ed Smith came along (although he certainly hasn't reversed the trend), by looking at the batting averages of the bowlers rather than at which of them are the best bowlers. If your 4 best bowlers all bat at Phil Tufnell/Devon Malcolm type levels, maybe you have to say we just can't be 6 out all out - find someone who can at least stay in for a while at 8 while being worth a place as 3rd seamer. And if you have 2 bowlers of equal ability, by all means use batting and fielding as the tie-breaker. But picking a lesser bowler because he bats better than someone who is a better bowler is asking for trouble. The choice between Woakes/Curran/Overton should be about who is the best bowler of the 3. Wood if he'd been fit should have been picked before any of them because, unless you're on a slow seamer that might suit Woakes, he's a better bowler than any of them. The fact he's the worst batsman of the 4, by some margin, is irrelevant. And if I was an England selector I'd pick Archer even if his FC batting average was 3 instead of 30! England's selection (in my book) actually improved a bit in this series (while still having the flaws you point out). They at least picked their best spinner instead of leaving it to a bits and pieces all-rounder. Bairstow was at least at 6 which was more like where a keeper should bat. Woakes looked in the World Cup like he deserved to be picked as a bowler, rather than getting picked because he could bat pretty well. Picking Butler and Roy remains bizarre (in my view) and asking Stokes to bat 5 is asking an awful lot, but it does look a bit more like the 5 batsmen, 1 wk, 4 bowlers and 1 batting all-rounder (if there is one) or 1 more batsman which is the basic structure that seems to have mostly worked over time.
Tanmoy Kar
Roar Rookie
Sam Curran should play in place of ODI specialist Jason Roy.
Paul
Roar Guru
but who gets the lurks & perks, Max? I mean flying business class everywhere, free entry to the grounds to watch guys play, free tucker and the odd beer?
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Stephen, I think our selectors had better cattle to choose from and the English selectors were (and are) caught between a rock and a hard place. In the months leading up to the this series, Australia had a full Australian summer, plus the start of the English county season, plus some form from the World Cup, plus a series of 4 day matches to draw together a squad they thought could keep the urn in Oz. Interestingly they managed to keep most punters happy, though obviously you weren't thrilled about Maxwell missing out on that final 4 day selection game ( did you really expect him to get a look in, given his indifferent batting in the World Cup?). The only mistakes Australian selectors made was to limit the squad to 17 - 18 would have been better and to include an all rounder who was not Test quality. England, on the other hand, had only the World Cup and 2 or 3 county games to choose a side. Even now, there are moans from ex-players because they have no current 4 day form to go by, because England has been playing only T20 and ODI cricket for weeks. Their selectors made the other simple mistake of assuming guys in great white ball form were going to be in great red ball form. The only one who's proved that theory right h but even he needed huge amounts of luck going his way. The rest have all under produced. The final dilemma England selectors face is the need to make changes. Realistically, only Burns, Stokes, Root, Archer and Broad should be there, IMO. Does that mean England replaces the other 6 with some of the names you mentioned? And what of THEY fail? Do they keep the panic going and bring in another 4 or 5? England right now simply don't have enough Test quality players and this is reflected in the number of scores under 100 they've made in recent years. Maybe it's worth cleaning out the team, but that would be an admission selectors got it wrong and we both know selectors NEVER get it wrong - just ask them!!
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
PS Labuschagne’s Sheffield Shield average is only 32 after 42 matches. That is way, worse - about 5-6 runs - than the start for anyone who has had a moderately successful Test career for Australia (averaging 38 and above, let’s say). It’s almost not good enough to retain a Shield place. It’s been boosted lately by his performance in County Division Two, which is below Shield standard. He looks like he has potential to become an exception to the rule, but it would be quite an outlier in terms of performances over the last 100 years, which is why people were right to question his selections.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
A lot of good points Steven. Especially “To wit, they picked six specialist batsman, a specialist keeper and four good bowlers.” Pope is obviously one for the future. They did try him last year and he didn’t come off, though only 2 Tests. Perhaps they felt he was still a bit young at 21. Though can’t see why he didn’t replace Roy at the Oval. But I am fed up with hearing how we “won the Ashes” as though the series is all over. That is shifting the goal posts. We didn’t win the Ashes. We won back this symbolic trophy last series and have retained it this time. But this is a series to be won, lost or drawn like any other. If we lose at the Oval we will have the drawn the series which is a helluva lot better than losing like the last four times. But we still won’t have won in England for 18 years and won’t have dented Trevor Bayliss’s record of not losing a Test series in England. Worse, the Poms will be able to say that but for rain at Lords they might even have won the series. So let’s keep things in perspective and not get too far ahead of ourselves. Also, there are Test championship points on offer. I fear the way the team celebrated after Old Trafford they’ve kidded themselves that it’s all over. You can bet if it was the other way round and England had retained the Ashes leading 2-1 we Australians would be saying it wasn’t all over and there was still all to play for!
El Loco
Roar Rookie
Steven I enjoy your pieces except when they mention Mitch Marsh. Sincerely, that whole situation is messing with your thinking and makes for muddled or biased writing, you gotta let it go mate.