Assuming Josh Hazlewood can’t recover from his hamstring tear picked up at Optus Stadium and is replaced by the evergreen Peter Siddle for the Boxing Day Test, a very rare milestone will be achieved on December 26 against New Zealand.
No debutants will have been selected in any of the Test matches Australia played in 2019. You read that correctly: no Test debutants this year.
The last time that happened, we were all extremely relieved the Y2K bug didn’t result in the end of the world and Australia celebrated an incredible home Olympic Games, exceeding all expectations. The country also had an extremely settled cricket team in 2000.
Since 2001, Australia have brought in new Test players every year until 2019, when none have been selected. How many have joined the list of Australian Test players? Seventy-five in all, so on average, four players a year are brought into the cauldron of Test cricket for the closest examinations of skill, temperament and technique.
So if you’re a keen up-and-coming cricketer with your eye on a baggy green, you’ll have to be one of the four chosen ones out of the thousands who play cricket every weekend around the country will get the call up. Yep – you count ‘em on one hand.
So how did our Test selectors perform over the past 20 years? Based on my assessment, they get it right roughly 40 per cent of the time. What’s more interesting is that in the ten-year period from 2000 to 2009, they got it right 45 per cent of the time and in the past ten years (2010 to 2019) they got it right 39 per cent of the time.
What’s also interesting is that while more data, computer analysis and resources are available these days for selectors, it does not seem to be improving their ability to choose who will succeed at the highest level.
So how do we assess if someone has been a successful Test selection?
Some are obvious. Steve Smith, David Warner, Pat Cummins and Nathan Lyon are automatic ticks.
(Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
But what about Ryan Harris? He only played 27 Tests but I have him in the successful category due to his heroics in England and especially in South Africa.
The number of players chosen for Australia each year ramped up dramatically after 2007 and increased until the 2019 drought. Things changed at the end of 2007 when the big three Justin Langer, Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath all retired at the end of an Ashes clean sweep and selectors threw the doors open and handed out baggy greens like ice creams on a hot day.
In the ten years from 2000 to 2009, only 29 players were selected. However in the past ten years, that number has jumped to 46. Results haven’t improved.
So which years where the good ones and which years were duds in the past decade?
Let’s start with 2010: Ryan Harris, Tim Paine, Steve Smith and Peter George (yep I have no idea who he is either but I double checked and he played one Test match). The first three need no discussion – three out of four, 75 per cent strike rate.
Compare that to the big year for selectors, 2011, when they brought in ten new faces. That’s almost a whole cricket team. There were some wonderful choices who will go on to be hall of famers: Nathan Lyon, Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc and David Warner. But there were some big misses too: Michael Beer, Trent Copeland and Ed Cowan didn’t manage to bother scorers too often and were quickly dismissed from the team.
A couple sit on the fence: Shaun Marsh and James Pattinson. There have been plenty of articles written about the Shaun Marsh experiment. He is possibly the most frustrating player Australian fans have ever had to cheer for. Dizzying highs and despairing lows. I’m going to be kind and stamp Marsh as successful given he scored six Test centuries and played 38 Tests, however his seemingly never-ending run of low scores and an average of 34 doesn’t stack up.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
For James Pattinson, the jury is still out. He’s played some good games but not really done enough to cement his place. However I’m giving him a pass mark. He’s still very much in the frame for selection and is often 12th man. So 2011 delivered ten selections, seven hits, three misses, 70 per cent strike rate. You’d take that any day of the week.
The year 2012 wasn’t a great one for selectors. Australia brought in Matt Wade (successful), Rob Quiney, John Hastings and Jackson Bird. Wade was brought in as a keeper, did well, was dropped, became a very good batsman and came back into a very stable line-up after a strong Ashes campaign in 2019. He even rolled his arm over the other day at a very respectable 130 kilometres per hour. The others of 2012 had limited impact and faded quickly from memory. One from four, 25 per cent strike rate.
Selection is not an exact science, but you have to question what was going through the selectors’ minds in 2013, which was worse than 2012. Australian cricket was misfiring on all cylinders in the early 2010s and selectors were twitchy and looking for miracles rather than developing players.
We’d been absolutely trounced at home in 2010-11 by England, South Africa won in Australia in 2012, and we’d been flogged four-nil in India in 2013. Selectors were desperate. Enter Moises Henriques, Glenn Maxwell, Ashton Agar, James Faulkner and George Bailey. None would go on to cement a place in the team.
Maxwell was a T20 player unsuited to Test cricket, Henriques and Faulkner were a throw of the dice to get our Freddie Flintoff, and Bailey was a fantastic player who just missed his chance. Five selections, five fails, zero per cent strike rate.
After being thrashed at home by South Africa in 2015-16, the selectors also grabbed a box full of baggy greens and mailed them to anyone with a cricket bat or ball in their garage.
The years 2016 and 2017 were very poor for selectors. In 2016, Jon Holland, Callum Ferguson, Joe Mennie, Nic Maddinson and Matt Renshaw were brought in. Five players, five starts, five fails. Peter Handscomb is borderline, but probably a fail. Zero per cent again.
Likekwise in 2017, Hilton Cartwright came and went, so did Cameron Bancroft. In two years we saw eight new faces, eight fails, zero per cent again.
(Photo by Ashley Vlotman/Gallo Images/Getty Images)
While it’s too early to tell whether the players from the past two or three years will go on to have major Test careers, the signs are very good for some in the class of 2018. In that year, the rolling of the dice continued, but luck started to turn for the selectors.
Another seven players were given a shot. Travis Head has shown lots of talent early and is firming as a solid choice batting at number six. And Marnus Labuschagne – the first concussion sub in Test history – has leaped out of the blocks. He leads the world in Test runs in 2019 and has just knocked up three centuries in a row. A superstar in the making.
Jhye Richardson made a promising debut at the start of the year but unluckily got injured at the wrong time. Too early to tell. Chadd Sayers, Aaron Finch, Marcus Harris and Kurtis Patterson all felt like right place, right time selections with none showing any real claim on a baggy green before being selected and are unlikely to see a return in the foreseeable future, so at this stage they will be classed as poor choices by selectors. The year 2018 delivered three from seven, 43 per cent strike rate.
It feels like selectors are giving more opportunities but giving players shorter time to find their feet in Test cricket. Is it our short attention spans? Is it due to the media pushing for change?
Do we all remember how many Test innings it took Steve Waugh to score his first hundred? Forty-two. It took 41 innings in 26 Test matches before he hit a magnificent 177 not out in Leeds in his 42nd. Steve Waugh would not have had his magnificent career in today’s high-scrutiny environment and would have been given the axe.
This begs the question for selectors: do they pick and stick or chop and change? Given you only have to be correct on average 40 per cent of the time, and can have complete shockers every couple of years, it probably doesn’t really matter.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Jero, "Rob Quiney was only ever a fill in for an injured Shane Watson." I don't think that's entirely correct. IIrc, Quiney was selected to protect Phil Hughes from those nasty RSA quicks. The plan was to punt Quiney when the *much* friendlier bowlers of SL arrived for the 2nd series of the summer, but Quiney's near-total lack of runs meant that he only had two Tests. Instead Hughes replaced Punter for the SL series as Punter retired after the RSA series. CoS Inverarity wanted to make sure that Hughes was "cherry ripe" for his return to the Test side and Mickey Arthur explained why he didn't want Hughes for the three Tests v RSA thus; From CInfo; (https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/22110766/phillip-hughes-rebirth-far-proven) 'The selectors' curious decision to keep Hughes away from the line of fire during the South Africa series has already stirred plenty of debate, raising as it did questions about how ready they think he is to face the world's best teams. [...] The use (if not abuse) of Rob Quiney in Hughes' stead was explained by the coach Mickey Arthur before the first Test in Brisbane with the reasoning that Australia needed a team of men, not boys, to face up to Graeme Smith's team. "I wouldn't want to disrespect any nation, but against a nation like South Africa right now, and we'd probably do the same against England and India, you want an experienced head to come in," Arthur said. "You can't blood a youngster against a team like South Africa. We want a guy who is very confident in his ability, a guy who knows his game backwards, and a guy that has got a little bit of experience. That gave Rob the nod."'
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Id say labs was conditions based test one as he had demonstrated condition based form in shield/warm up properly prior to test 1, carey not being included conditions affiliated at the time as he was demonstrating it locally, warner not being dropped clearly conditions affiliated as he just wasn’t performing there and away from a flat deck, harris by test 5 conditions based ( he was struggling in local conditions) . starc omission fith test at oval conditions based for me as had prior form there which suited . Rotations mistakes too for bowlers were selectors mistakes jeff didn’t rotate correctly. One good move was bringing starc in manchester win that was a good rotation decision. by and large more bad decisions than good ones as far as selection went as when you look at it four to five critical players carried the burden of saving tests for a draw (lords) , and the two wins. Poor selection definitely attributable to series draw instead of win.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
OK. That may be poor use of selections in your view, but that's not the same as the selectors refusing to make changes based on conditions. Clearly they have been doing that, even if the assessment is they got the changes wrong.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
I agree with you rowdy roddy piper, totally agree .
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Not enough in england though i.e. starc needed to come in at lords, khwaja elevated to open instead of dropped and they actually panic rotated the openers too early and inconsistently with bancroft to harris, bancroft was staying in at the crease longer than warner. Was comedy that one. Then shuffled out head when you should have kept him in at oval . And then my biased one apparently by not bringing local carey in to the squad and to afraid to drop lyon at lords let alone headingly/oval where he wasn’t getting much (mainly due to the pitch actually ) or had an injury niggle (used 4 overs in first innings at oval) . Just spotted a lot of mistakes there. More primary was not playing labs from test one with majestic county form and warm up form , it took smiths injury to get him in , carey with world cup form where they could barely get him out and related county innings , have every bet of confidence in him batting well in england. the back up county red ball form reiterated it for those that said he wasn’t ready with red ball, then he wallops centuries back in aus just to reprove it . There was a lot going wrong in england for me and the results showed it. A few tough calls siddle who they may not have known was injured or going to be injured at oval vs pattinson but should have retained starc there. Admittedly they got marsh right for me at oval I agreed with it prior to his selection and people were whinging about it but thought he go well off previous form at oval and he did with the ball so that was one win they had there that went against the grain of a lot of people.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I reckon the selectors really lost their nerve. One test had already been lost. Ferguson and Mennie come in and cop, for the collective failure; somethings which predated them being in the team. NSW Education runs schools in a similar way.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I think selectors have regularly changed squads to suit the overseas location. They done it with spinners in India, batsmen in Asia (e.g Khawaja) pace bowlers in England (e.g. Siddle), batsmen in England (e.g. Rogers). Goodness knows the bowling attack was moved around last Ashes to suit perception of wicket played on. Selectors even omitted a batsman for an allrounder based on The Oval perception. Not sure how much more selectors could have chopped and changed around that team in that series. Which specific examples are you referencing? Nearly all players need time to find their feet at Test level.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Some good research there general. I knew hohns had come and gone . He's a potential culprit for me given our team was so ridiculously strong until 2006 really Since 2014 the selectors have been pretty mediocre for me . Interesting debate below on whether langer should be a selector . Im moe likely to target hohns as needing to move on for me than langer but who knows who says what besides closed doors. Im not sure on hohns though theres been some wild selections and during the ashes they were all over the shop really , letting go of players too early, not letting go of players who just were never going to deliver and then not striking the right balance and rotation with bowling and 5th test was a night on selection debarcle for me. Hasn't been much for them to do in aus so far this summer really , the opposition has been poor and the majority of the side play much better on home turf.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Its rough to drop a player after one match. I set the bar at 3 matches if its just dire. More to the point if someone is performing well locally abroad consistently (namely in england as hard to get good local subcontinent experience before a test series) and the team is struggling then sometimes the prudent choice is to play that player . It was costly in the ashes for me. The selectors failed there really for me this summer in all sorts of ways. Hard to know which ones were the culprits. Some players were binned to early some not binned at all , some not rotated correctly. it was a series of errors for me not just one offs.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Re trevor hohning?
Pierro
Roar Rookie
“Most players do need time to become successful players” – generally true but sometimes the horses for courses are really important jeff. England and subcontinent tours in particular demand inclusion of players that can play the dukes ball and have good defense in england and can face spin on subcontinent. It always surprises me how selectors stick with the same australian flat track skillset when it comes to certain selections in certain tours . You know that a drum I bang a lot and it has cost us sometimes you have to try some players and take a risk as sticking with the same players who can’t face spin well or can’t face a dukes ball and have discipline to leave balls outside offstump well and play less square of the wicket is deftyfyingly obvious to me . I generally think the selectors have been poor in the last ten years at least, there seems to be some bias with them too
Pierro
Roar Rookie
All right except mitch marsh was a good selection at lords and oval in general in london for his bowling. He’s been terrible generally in australia though. Id agree though I tend to think the selectors have made a lot of errors in the last ten years. I like the last comment long careers for those selected doesn’t make the selectors any better. As i keep saying many horses for courses with conditions and pitches.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Moderate temps for th boxing day test forecast so far. Perth or Adelaide weather I don't know - so much for and against jeff and rowdy the debate rages on lol
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Rogers was one of the only lights to shine in 2013 and 2015 tours in england . He was holding the side up a lot of the time with his batting there
Tanmoy Kar
Guest
A very good analysis on the Selectors performance, very interesting to read.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Damn! That would be my ideal! Newfoundland, Toronto, general Hudson's Bay area (arctic circle if it could be arranged) and British Columbia (islands especially, plus Rockies), would be a choice 2-3 months for me!
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
And funny thing is l may end up in Quebec. Sharing a Kombi across Canada and turning left down the West Coast.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Crikey. You are *are* a ramblin' man as Jero suggested! Like it!
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I dunno, l read the Marley Chronicles here n there. I don't really live anywhere atm. I don't conform, l hate conforming but l have strong responsibility views as well. I'm detached and intense. Sort of a songless Neil Young.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
So your a hippie / drop out type then? Makes sense. Peace out.