Prior to Australia’s T20 trip to South Africa, the absence of the injured Glenn Maxwell was identified as a problem, and most pundits were fingering Matthew Wade or Mitch Marsh as the obvious replacement.
The balance of the team, batsmen versus all-rounders, the fifth bowler, effectiveness of hitters and other topics occupied the minds of fans.
Given the dominance of David Warner, Aaron Finch and Steve Smith, the performance of Wade, Marsh and Alex Carey largely faded into irrelevance. For the record, in three completed digs each, Wade made 29 runs off 22 balls, Marsh 44 off 38, and Carey 48 off 38. Nothing special, but little opportunity really for any of them, and Maxwell’s absence was not an issue.
While we recorded a 2-1 series win, Australian observers were rightly frustrated with our inability to get over the line in Game 2, and some criticism was aimed at Smith and Warner for not pushing harder earlier. But when Smith was dismissed, we needed just over seven runs per over. That looked like a comfortable position for such a highly rated batting unit.
Some pointed at our batsmen for not getting the well-established Warner to the striker’s end. Warner brought up his half-century off 38 balls with a boundary four in the middle of the 12th over. He then managed only an additional 16 runs off 19 balls. The middle-order of Carey, Marsh and Wade between them managed 21 runs from 20 balls.
Remarkably, after Warner reached his 50, the only boundary hit was a six by Carey. South Africa bowled and fielded very well, but one boundary in the last seven overs of a T20 match?
Finch did not seem particularly worried about this performance, but I think it showed a long-existing Australian weakness, and that is its ‘all or nothing’ mentality.
You are either a power hitter like Maxwell and Warner or you don’t belong in the T20 game. This leads to the idea that the only way to score well in T20s is to be super aggressive in the power plays, then push 1s and 2s if you have to, before you go crazy at the end. A generalisation, but you get the point. I think the T20 game has some subtleties that Australia hasn’t yet recognised.
The likes of Maxwell, Warner, Chris Lynn etc are great for the spectacle and they are likely to come off on the normal Aussie flat, consistent pitches when the ball comes on and even the slower ball doesn’t deviate much.
Not all pitches are like that, and the slower pitch that is friendly to the cutter as was the case Game 2 at Port Elizabeth, particularly in the second session, require a different approach.
Quality batsman can adapt to all conditions as required, and I think Australian selectors are looking too much at the big hitters regardless of conditions. With the modern cricket bat, anyone can clear the fence or hit the fence before the ball is cut off.
Timing and placement is just as important as muscle and, forgive my nostalgia, the likes of Michael Bevan and Mike Hussey are the type of player that Australia needs. Of course, this needs time and application, and I think we would be far better off if batsman stopped practising 80-metre clearances and started working on the skills needed to adapt to all conditions they are likely to face and the shots they need to emulate these great players.
Weight on the ball and soft hands are two skills that Australian T20 batsmen are just starting to apply effectively. The greater skills of bat face control, combined with footwork, use of the crease, and playing late are skills that are clearly lacking. Game awareness and managing scoreboard pressure are also works in progress.
These skills, honed under pressure, are required when faced with the South Africa Game 2 scenario. I think these skills have been usurped by the more spectacular and higher risks shots like the over the shoulder flick.
Pre-meditation is apparent all too often and batsmen are continually getting unstuck by trying to guess what the next delivery is going to be. Great when it comes off, but you look stupid when it fails.
I think batsmen are trying too much innovation and attempting high-risk shots when a genuine cricket shot properly placed and weighted is the better, lower risk and more productive proposition.
Call me old-fashioned, but I believe we need to take a deep breath on power hitting, nudge the pause button and go back to the approach that made Bevan and Hussey the best finishers in the game. Graeme Hick should get Ricky Ponting and Hussey on board and start developing these ‘old fashioned’ skills so that we have a chance to apply them for the T20 World Cup in October this year.
RowiE
Roar Rookie
Yes, I think we’re on the same page. My feeling is that we aren’t trying to develop these higher level skills because there is so much emphasis on big hitting. It’s so easy to see late in the first innings or in a tough chase when batsman are sitting back in the crease and hoping to hit big. Good bowling combats this and the hitters will succeed less and less frequently as bowlers get better. That’s why we need more highly skilled short form batsman rather than more hitters. It will be interesting to watch the game evolve further, when we can hold games again. Cheers RowiE
Paul
Roar Guru
I think we're probably saying the same thing, only in different ways, RowiE. What you want is a batsman, preferably a pair, to bat normally but aggressively and still make 8 plus an over. Obviously that's very doable but I wonder just how many bats in world cricket can actually bat like that? It seems to me most are divided into two classifications, hitters and accumulators. The very small group who can do both IMO are guys like Kohli, Smith, Ross Taylor and Eoin Morgan (Dhoni could up until a couple of years ago). I'm sure there are others, but there wouldn't be many and that's the problem we face. It's such a hard thing to do, batting as though playing a red ball game, but being capable of hammering deliveries almost at will. I'm not sure who else could bat like this in Australian cricket. Maybe Carey and perhaps D'arcy Short, if he could get more than one game in a row to show what he can do?
RowiE
Roar Rookie
Thanks for the comment. Re the power hitters, my point was that we seem to be looking for power hitters as a solution rather than pursuing the likes of Carey and Smith. I think the balance is wrong and we suffer too often from power hitters coming in late and failing when 15 off 12 gets you well above par with an established batsman at the other end. I'm not talking about nudging the ball around chasing 8plus an over, quality batsmen that I'm talking about hit a single/2 off the ball the power hitters hit dot, then hit 4 by better footwork, batsman skill etc that the hitter can't, like a guide through 2nd slip off a yorker. I still want the hitters, but add in combination with some higher, craftier skill will get us more runs. Cheers
astro
Roar Rookie
I actually would like to see Australia be bold and go for a batting line up, which is basically all power hitters and few slow/spin bowlers, preferably all-rounders... The logic? Well, if you look at the top 'ranked' T20 players (and I admit, the ICC rankings are flawed, but still give some indication), aggressive batsmen and bowlers with variation in pace or spin, dominate the rankings. From a batting perspective, wickets are irrelevant. Its all about run rate. From a bowing perspective, its all about taking pace off the ball, and variation. I'm not saying this would work, but Aus could afford to experiment a lot more than it does in T20, and try to find the right approach. Pick a deep and aggressive batting line up and tell them to attack from ball one...All you'd need is for one or two batsmen to hang around and the team would post a big total. My 11 would be something like: 1. Finch, 2. Warner, 3. Maxwell, 4. Lynn, 5. Stoinis, 6. Wade, 7. Short, 8. Carey, 9. Agar, 10. Cummins 11. Zampa Just a thought but would love to see what happens with a new/different approach, and not just adopting a slight variation from the ODI team.
Paul
Roar Guru
"You are either a power hitter like Maxwell and Warner or you don’t belong in the T20 game." Really? Steve Smith is not considered a power hitter, nor is Alex Carey, yet they appear to be locks for the T20 World Cup starting XI. The point being made is valid, but depends entirely on circumstance. First of all, we need to remember we're talking about T20 cricket, not ODIs, where Bevan and Hussey were very good. There are way less overs to "take a deep breath" and it's not possible to simply nudge the ball around when trying to set/make more than 8 runs an over. I agree trying to hit every ball for 4 or 6 is simply bad batting and getting ones & twos has it's place, but this only occurs very occasionally when a side is chasing and rarely happens when a side bats first, unless they've lost a lot of wickets. If this approach becomes the way Australia plays T20's, we'll be lucky to win a game at the World Cup.
Graeme
Guest
Bevan was the best ODI chaser we ever had. A bit like Dhoni at his peak but better. If the RRR was 50, he’d score it at a smidge under 60. If the RRR was 100, he’d start off at about 50 and slowly accelerate until it was 101. He wasn’t definitely the best first innings batsman, but when he knew what the chase was he would play with just enough risk to get the job done.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
None of them played T20. The averages don't compare. I reckon McGrath would have been hammered. Imagine his neck veins when he is scooped over the keeper.
tahoa
Guest
That comment would be a huge disrespect to modern batsmen if they have better bats and still or won't be able to beat the records of yesteryear batsmen. Yes the batsmen of today's game have more attacking mindset but they are facing the same type of ball regardless. If the bowlers can't adjust to the changing of the game or the different variety of batsmen with their styles then it's more to do with their own mindset than giving the excuse of the mindsets of the batsmen. McGrath and the likes mentioned above dealt with more technical batsmen who were at the top of their games back then but still challenged them and earned their place as top, respected bowlers.
Tom
Khawaja’s record is ordinary in white ball cricket when he doesn’t open. He’s another player like Wade, Short, Stoinis etc who is heavily reliant on scoring runs through boundaries when the field is up during the powerplay
Tom
Unroped boundaries, smaller bats and batsmen with far less attacking mindsets/skills contributed to those lower economy rates. I’d bet that those bowlers would have similar economy rates to Starc and Cummins if they were bowling in today’s game. ODI cricket has changed a huge amount over the past 15-20yrs, it’s pretty pointless to try and compare players from then to now.
Gee
Roar Rookie
Better bowlers back then. McGrath, Warne, Akram etc averaged less than 4 runs an over. Starc and Cummins go at 5+ and are considered stars by today's standards.
Mike
Guest
A good article that raises an issue worth discussion. I played in a T20 comp recently which our team won. We started off badly in the first game where we batted first and were guilty of trying to hit the cover off the ball. We failed to set a decent total and the opposition just batted steadily to get the required total of 125. From there we talked about our approach and decided the key was to limit the number of dot balls and NOT to be fixated about maximising sixes and fours. We found that the boundaries just started to happen. It's not a game of slogging. It's a game of batting with intent and running hard. Personally, my best innings was 35 from 20 balls and I didn't play one out and out slog. I scored from 18 balls and so, only two dots! I really surprised myself and found that working the ball around, hitting hard when the ball was there for it and running at times riskily, really frustrated the opposition who then kept tinkering with their field placements. Boundaries just happened for us via good attacking cricket shots played aggressively. I reckon the approach of limiting dot balls, punishing loose deliveries, and running to turn 0s into 1s and 1s into 2s will get you to a good total. Of course boundaries are important but they come naturally once you get your eye in and build momentum. And, of course, if you out-field your opponent then that is effectively like scoring extra runs. Keeping the momentum going is the key - not peaks and troughs.
Scotty
Guest
I believe we already have a few batsmen that can fulfil this role. Khawaja and Ferguson in particular spring to mind. Both tend to pay 3, but both can play power and the precision game required and both are reasonably good against spin.
Trevor
Guest
Bevan's strike rate, especially when batting first, cost us numerous games. He won us a couple batting second, but was a liability batting first - seemed more interested in preserving his averaging than getting a defendable total.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Fair comment that not everyone can be a Maxwell. But I think Carey showed in the WC that he has a degree of finesse to accelerate an innings, it’s not just coming off for him in the last few games. Marsh on the other hand showed a real weakness against slower balls in the SA T20 series - just couldn’t adjust.
redbackfan
Roar Rookie
hmmm, michael bevan. career strike rate for odi's 74. we were a kinder, gentler nation then. you wouldnt get to 200 plus games (you wouldnt get 20) with that strike rate these days. nostalgia aint what it used to be.