There are three aspects to being a good Test cricketer: ability, experience and form.
All the ability in the world means nothing if players can’t use it when the occasion demands because they’re out of form or lack the experience to manage pressure situations. In reverse, the most experienced players can’t win games if they lack the ability or the form to do so.
The current Australian batsmen and the fringe batsmen who might be considered for selection are all missing at least one of these key aspects, Steve Smith excepted.
The following table highlights the number of Tests each has played as well as their current Test average. These are the players selectors considered when trying to come up with an Ashes squad.
| Batsman | Tests played | Average |
|---|---|---|
| Dave Warner | 79 | 45.5 |
| Marcus Harris | 9 | 24.1 |
| Marnus Labuschagne | 9 | 37.5 |
| Steve Smith | 68 | 64.6 |
| Matthew Wade | 27 | 29.8 |
| Mitch Marsh | 32 | 25.2 |
| Tim Paine | 26 | 31.4 |
| Travis Head | 12 | 42.7 |
| Usman Khawaja | 44 | 40.7 |
| Cameron Bancroft | 10 | 26.2 |
| Joe Burns | 16 | 40.1 |
| Matthew Renshaw | 11 | 33.5 |
| Peter Handscomb | 16 | 38.9 |
| Kurtis Patterson | 2 | 144 |
| Matthew Puckovski | 0 | – |
The top six players formed the batting line-up for the fifth Test, and there are some telling issues.
Everyone knows about Dave Warner’s lack of form, but the averages for the other batsmen, excluding Smith, are simply not Test standard. It’s a serious issue when Tim Paine, who most pundits don’t rate as a Test batsman, has a better average than Nos. 2, 5 and 6. Throw in a lack of form or poor technique and it’s a wonder the side managed to make enough runs to win the Tests that it did.
The supposed challengers for Test batting spots also have their own issues, either through a lack of form, a lack of experience or, in some cases, both. These players were all given plenty of opportunities before the series started and none did enough to displace one of the touring squad. In other words, a lack of form, experience or ability stopped them from touring.
(Gareth Copley/Getty Images)
Some could argue Glenn Maxwell or even Aaron Finch could have been considered, and it’s likely their names were mentioned but discarded through a lack of either form or technique at Test level or some indifferent batting in other games.
The problem Australian selectors face is trying to find Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6 when the current crop and their challengers are failing at least one of the three key elements required to be a good Test player.
Guys like Marnus Labuschagne and Travis Head seem to need only more experience as their techniques, while not perfect, look like they will improve with more Test under their belts. In that case, they need extended time in the side.
The same could be said for Joe Burns, but his lack of form killed his chances of touring, so he needs runs badly and soon.
The techniques of Marcus Harris, Matthew Wade, Mitch Marsh, Cameron Bancroft, Matthew Renshaw, Peter Handscomb and Kurtis Patterson were given a severe examination and found wanting. They all need to change some aspect of their game, but should they be allowed to do this in an actual Test or do they need to prove themselves in Sheffield Shield cricket?
What happens if these guys cannot make the changes required? Do the selectors persist with guys averaging in the 20s or 30s or do they turn to players many pundits have discarded – Warner and Usman Khawaja, for example?
It will probably take two or three years for the Australian batting line-up to become settled and effective as a Test batting unit. That’s assuming the current contenders stay in form and/or gain experience and/or fix their techniques.
Selectors are probably going to be making some very unpopular decisions along the way, but as long as they’re made for the right reasons, that should be acceptable.
It would make no sense, for example, to drop a guy who needs experience to improve his batting for a player who has a flawed technique. As we’ve just seen, guys with substandard technique are very quickly found out by good bowlers, and both our upcoming opponents, Pakistan and New Zealand, have quality attacks.
It may take some time to get the team right and the selectors might have to make some controversial changes, but as long as the end result is a new dynasty of great Test cricketers, Australian fans might have to suffer some short-term pain for some long-term gain.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Yeah, good thoughts Paul, but sometimes I'm not convinced that it's all that hard. Your three 'tick boxes' are good, though I'd add confidence as another prerequisite. From a selector viewpoint however, they also go on 'hunches'. What I don't like in what I see is that they (1) Don't back themselves enough and can be inclined at times to make selections based on external public pressures and conversely, (2) often aren't prepared to acknowledge their errors and adjust if they make the wrong call while also (3) being too accepting of mediocrity. I'm happy to take the gig for a while though, I could pick an awesome team for the coming home series.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
"As we’ve just seen, guys with substandard technique are very quickly found out by good bowlers...". And this is why Steve Smith ruined my cricket watching life. He has a rotten technique but hasn't been "found out" at all by good bowlers. What he has done is ripped up and danced on the dictum that you could judge a batsman on technique. Drop him and erase his existence in the best Ministry of Truth tradition I say.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
Perhaps I should qualify my previous post which was unfair. If you have PDS and CIS, I have CDS and PIS. So we are both in the same boat.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Hindsight will say ten innings of low scores for Warner was a Test too many. Persevering with a proven opener with an average of 50 and a half century every 3 innings when the other opening spot isn't producing isn't surprising. I seem to remember a similar call from critics when Ponting struggled in India, but some players have earned the chance to turn it around because they will pay the team back in spades.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Starc has to get a game first. Cummins is a partnership builder, Starc a hitter. Cummins had a bad away series with the bat, unsurprisingly. If you don't think changing the lower order counts as chopping and changing then you've misunderstood the different abilities of those guys with the bat. It's as ridiculous as the Poms batting Broad at 11.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
You cite Ponting on Carey. I will quote you Ponting's thoughts on Fox cricket. "He (Paine) presents himself really well, speaks well, has been leading the team EXCEPTIONALLY - on and off the field - and is starting to get the rewards for that". Not bad for someone who is past their best.
Paul
Roar Guru
I suspect there's a lot of crystal ball gazing going on, Jeff. They might as well ask a fortune teller as try to lineup form across two divisions, IMO.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Nathan, the elephant in the room for English cricket is the amount of short form games County sides have to play. This problem is only going to get worse next year when the 100 series starts, which will be another short form competition on top of the comps they already play. The English pundits were talking before the last Test about how hard it would be for selectors to change the English batting lineup, not because it was needed, but because there'd apparently been no County games for a month! This meant selectors only had form from T20's ( mostly) and ODI's to go on.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
Another PDS sufferer and CIS complaint.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
You do, that's interesting. Some say he suits opener too. This makes me think he's a #3. He has the temperament of a #3 in my books.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Certainly helps sort the wheat from the chaff, in a general sense. Though is team-based. But yes, when there are standout performances in the 2nd division, how do they accurately assess suitability for national representation?
Nathan Absalom
Roar Guru
And I think the introduction of divisions helped improve English cricket as a whole. The better players in contention for test selection now play a better standard of cricket more consistently, although it makes it harder for selectors to compare players.
Lawrence
Roar Rookie
Wade scoring 2 Ashes hundreds against Archer/Broad/Woakes/Stokes was quality. No other top 7 for Aust made a 100 except Smith. Wade made 1,000 runs last Shield season. Wade is combative and appeared the only one at The Oval who cared, took Archer on who was bowling 95 mph. Has another 5 years left. He is a shoe in for 1st test and will bat well against Pakistan and New Zealand on our pitches at 6. I'd expect his average to reach low 40s in next couple years. Harris and Bancroft really struggled and were found out, techniques are diabolical at present against moving ball. They would need a couple seasons of run scoring to be considered again. Warner needs runs in First 4 Shield games to keep his spot. If Warner wants to go down as a great, he needs to make runs away from home. Most Australian batsman play well at home. Burns makes runs in Shield and will open 1st test. Weatherald makes couple hundreds I bet will be considered. Blooding Carey at home as keeper now would make sense, last couple years he has keeper and batted well, Ponting rates him highly. Paine is past his best. Labu 3, Smith 4, Head/Patterson 5. Bowling is the easy part, Cummins/Hazlewood/Lyon/Starc/Pattinson/Richardson.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
# Brett A I guess the point I was making there in the above post re England-qualified players is that each team is allowed 1 or 2 o/s players, the rest are English and so their comparative performances are probably indicative of the quality of the competition given most of the comp is made up of local players. Div 1 has 8 teams and Div 2 has 8 teams. Div 2 is teams that are "relegated" to the lower division. So this is where the Div 2 FC stats can be misleading. The players aren't actually being tested against the better half of available "talent" (as a collective), so the stats are probably elevated. At least in Shield, a player from the bottom two teams still has their overall stats derived from performances against the top sides.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
"Since when is averaging 40 not test standard?" Averaging 40 (in Tests) is absolutely Test standard in contemporary terms. For the last 2 or 3 years globally, less than half of Test batsmen (half of the available top 6 positions, that is) worldwide have averaged higher than the 30s in that time.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Yes but Labuschagne's performances were miles in front of most England domestic players, so Labu's form did translate to Test performances because they were that far ahead: Quick review of the Div 2 data to now: -Alex Carey (O/S player) 125 ave (but only 1 match) -Dwaine Pretorius (O/S player) 111 ave (but only 1 match) - Dane Vilas (O/S player) 92 ave - LABUSCHAGNE (O/S player) 65.53 ave - Ryan Higgins 64 ave - Josh Bohannon 61 ave - Hassan Azad 54 ave (may have qualified for England selection?) - George Garton 51 ave (but only 2 matches) - Paul Stirling 50 ave (but only 2 matches) The rest are in the 40s or below. So Labu's performance was was well above standard and there were very few England-qualified players averaging even close. There some Div 2 teams that have decent attacks (when available), but equally there are more with sub-standard attacks.
Big Daddy
Guest
One of the problems was the selectors could wait to get Smith,Warner and Bancroft back into the team admittedly with some help from Langer. It backfired and he then decided to go with Harris who also failed miserably. With Warner falling the others didn't have much clue. Langer has repeatedly says he picks on form so let's see him stand up to his word.
WAYNE BENNETT
Roar Rookie
I think labs is better suited to 4 or 5
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Yes absolutely. Banging the door down used to be one or two 1,000 plus run seasons averaging 50+. Admittedly Harris did that in 18-19 with about 1,200 runs at 70. The last before that I recall was Voges with 1,350 at 105. Averaging 35-40 in Shield shoudln't translate to more than 30-35 (maybe less? at Test level. That's a real issue for Australia at present. Not wanting to get drawn into the Paine debate, but it further emphasises the need to extend the batting depth down to No. 7 (of course there are limited FC keeping options available: Carey at 40.3 over the last two Shield seasons is probably the only realistic future option). That said, I think only 25 batsmen have a Test average 40 and above over the last two years. That's more than half of the "top 6" across all Test nations averaging in the 30s or below. Seems to be a worldwide issue re Test batting. The days of 45-50 being the benchmark for a Test batsman seem long gone.
Jero
Roar Rookie
Just checked out Burns’ stats. He got 235 (170 and 65) in the one Test, in New Zealand in 2016. Followed by 3, 29, 0, 2, 1, 0. The last two at Bellerive against South Africa before getting dropped for Renshaw. He came back 16 months later in Johannesburg in March 2018, when Warner and Bancroft were sacked. Scores of 4 and 42. They’re his five Tests before the Sri Lanka Tests in February. 15, 180 and 9. What to make of it all? That he looked a million dollars against New Zealand then had three shockers. I guess not too dissimilar to Warner’s Ashes shocker, or Bancroft’s or Harris’. Then he got the monster score against Sri Lanka. Nestled between two failures. What I take from it all is that all our openers, Warner now included, have had some serious rough trots. If everyone thinks Burns is so great and Warner so terrible, do they think it beyond the realm of possibility that once he sorts things out Warner might also get going again, like Burns did against Sri Lanka? Can they conceive that maybe the selectors might reasonably think that that if Burns can get it back after nine straight poor innings (excluding the 42) that Warner might be able to after ten bad ones (excluding the 61) too?