It’s been too long since Australia last had the opportunity to pick young cricketers that have demanded Test selection through sheer weight of performance.
Since Ryan Harris was awarded his baggy green in blustery Wellington in March 2010, a further 45 players have been awarded their Test debuts. Nineteen did so before their 25th birthday, showing the selectors aren’t averse to youth. Yet only 11 have kicked on beyond ten Tests, displaying a caveat to this faith.
But none of them were picked on account of red-hot performance. Even the greatest of them in Steve Smith began his career as a capable leg spinner before evolving into the long form’s premium batsman.
While he did average 56 with the bat in 13 first-class matches, it was a bowling mean of nigh on 49 that got him the nod – neither a sign of banging the door down, nor of what was to come.
This is where Will Pucovski and Cameron Green come into the picture. Starting with Pucovski first, he’s been a name that has generated more than a whisper in recent seasons. Yet whenever on the cusp, his opportunity was gone on account of well-documented personal issues.
No need to embellish on this point, as it is his record now that should strike into focus.
A total average of 55 over 22 first-class matches is appealing enough, before you factor in two double-tons in his last two outings. In a decade where grassier wickets have seen plenty of wickets plundered for too few runs at Shield level, these aren’t figures to be ignored. Thankfully, the selectors share this sentiment as well.
Will Pucovski. (Photo: Paul Kane/Getty Images)
Cameron Green brings about an entirely different discussion which goes to the heart of Australian cricketing psyche.
Since the Second World War, Australia have only occasionally trifled with allrounders at Test level. Granted, few can match the majesty of a Keith Miller or Richie Benaud, and as such, the country have largely sought to pack their side with six blokes who can bat well, four or five who can take 20 wickets, and a wicketkeeper who can contribute some handy runs.
There was little need to combine the distinct art forms until 2005, when Andrew Flintoff changed the Australian modern perspective on allrounders.
Both Shane Watson and Mitchell Marsh were given good cracks to show the multidimensional quality required, yet both have fallen short due to both injury and inconsistency. And again, neither had the runs and wickets records needed to show they were going to be the Australian answer to Flintoff.
It must be said that Cameron Green is no guarantee he will be either. The uniqueness of quality allrounders are derived from how few there are.
Yet over 19 Shield matches, he’s averaging with the bat at near 50 and bowling sub-23. Players have been picked for the Test team with records in near reverse of that. And he too has begun 2020/21 with a bang, piling on two tons and recently returning to the bowling crease after injury.
Cameron Green is one of Australian cricket’s brightest young stars. (Photo by Mark Brake/Getty Images)
Both players present appealing choices, but it takes bravery to select them ahead of worthy options in the likes of Joe Burns and others with appealing cases.
For one, most of the young players picked in the last decade have been proverbial Hail Marys, being drafted in either during positions of weakness or in the vainglorious hope of uncovering a hidden gem. Yet the likes of Smith, Nathan Lyon and Pat Cummins are the exceptions, not the rule.
It’s even braver to pick them against India. Their first ever triumph two years ago was courtesy of a batting line-up unable to withstand the losses of Smith and David Warner. It is this area where Pucovski and Green are most likely to solidify Australia’s home advantage, even before you account for Virat Kohli’s impending departure after the First Test.
Seldom have the stars aligned for Australia to take a calculated punt as opposed to a speculative one. Success for Pucovski and Green can enable them long unabated stints in the Test team for years to come.
Initial failures can afford them the opportunity to learn within the national team environment, or at worse, return to Shield climes to rework their games for a later run at a future date.
So their case is solid. All that is needed now is bravery.
Robbie Miller
Roar Rookie
I think Burns needs at least the first two tests to prove his worth. He has a better batting average than Ponting, Hayden and Langer had at the same point in their careers. Even Kohli only averaged 39 after 29 tests. He's been dropped 5 times in 21 tests and once after a 180. I have no doubt WP will play test cricket but give him an entire season first.
Paul
Roar Guru
so you want to pick a bloke who's played exactly 2 innings as an opening batsman on Shield roads against one honest attack and another marginally better, to face the second best attack in world cricket? I can see the smile on Bumrah's face already. As for Hussey, there were serious calls for him to be playing Tests when he was 22/23, but he was passed over, just like Puckovski and Green.
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
Mark Waugh got dropped in November 2002 - Hussey was 27 at the time, and not averaging the numbers he was when he got in. Martyn was near about 50 at that moment, and ended with a not-so-shabby 46-odd. Blewett's last Test was in March 2000, and Lehmann was a generation above Hussey for knocking on the door for his chance, which he did largely well with. I might be harsh on Head, but in a two-tiered cricket economy, the guy has a HS of only 72 against India/England. His figures are mostly fattened up by hapless SL and NZ bowling attacks on Aussie pitches. This is what I mean when I say that while he doesn't necessarily deserve the punt, neither should his place be considered safe, especially when there is a viable alternative available. Your last question: no, if Burns and Wade get picked and do well, they shouldn't lose their place. I'm a firm believer of rewarding good form. If that happens, then Green and Pucovski will have to either wait their turn, or take someone else's spot. But the argument is here and now: two young blokes are in superb form, and if the rhetoric is about players knocking on the door, then it has to occasionally be matched by action.
Paul
Roar Guru
People forget Puckovski is still only 22, has opened the batting at Shield level exactly twice and one of those innings was against a Shield attack best described as "honest". And Langer and co are going to trust his ability to open the batting for Australia against the second best attack in the world on the strength of 2 innings?
Paul
Roar Guru
"Mike Hussey had to wait by virtue of six blokes who were all averaging 50+ against fine attacks." Really? Mark Waugh was at the end of his career and in the time Hussey might have replaced him, Waugh managed to average more than 40 once. His other competition came from Damien Martyn, Greg Blewitt and Darren Lehmann, none of whom averaged close to 50. Green is 21 and Puckovski is 22. All things being equal, they've got the opportunity to play Test cricket till they're 35. I really can't see how asking them to wait a few more Tests is going to harm them or Australia in the long term. I also think you're being harsh on Head. He averages a tick under 42 in Tests and along with Smith & Labuschagne will form the backbone of the Australian lineup for at least the next 5 years. What happens if both Burns & Wade have outstanding Test series? Should Green & Puckovski replace them based on Shield form?
Micko
Roar Rookie
To be fair, Healy didn't drop in form, but Gilchrist was so good, he was likely superior to Healy with his batting at #7 taken into consideration. Assuming Pucovski keeps his exceptional form, the selectors will have to pick him eventually, which means there might be an unlucky casualty.
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
Mike Hussey had to wait by virtue of six blokes who were all averaging 50+ against fine attacks. Gilchrist is a wicketkeeper, and had to wait for Healy to lose his form. I agree with the principle of your argument, as it's a sound one. But I don't know what point there is of telling young players to perform and not give them an opportunity, especially if you contextualise that none of Burns, Wade or Head have done little to demand their spots be safe. Looks like Langer will stick to Burns - it's the wrong call, not because of anything Burns has done, but we're overlooking a bloke who has the ability to be a mainstay for the next decade. His form demands selection.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
As long as they're not chewing up too many overs for no reward there's no harm in it I guess. Tbh, I thought Dorans bowling looked handy. Medium pace surprisingly. He just looks more like a spinner to me.
Jero
Roar Rookie
Very true. A clear example of watching it happen it in real time was when Phil Hughes was caught Guptill bowled Martin in four straight home innings in 2011. It was painful to watch, in its predictability. Wherever Guptill stood in the cordon, Hughes always found him. Just googled some unkind quips listed in The Otago Times when it happened. "If Phillip Hughes was cheating on his girlfriend Guptill would be the one who caught him out!". And as Kerry O'Keefe put it, "If Phil Hughes gets a nick shaving tomorrow morning, Martin Guptill will appear from the medicine cabinet".
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Yes, I know. That's my point. For some weird reason Tassie are really into that. Throw Wade the ball, throw Doran the ball... Just don't see that in other states so much!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
There is a reason why we have selectors, and not just a computer to crunch the numbers and pick the statistically best players. Some times it comes down to identifying those traits that will serve them well at the next level. Some players get selected based on weight of runs at domestic level, but even when selected we are a bit worried about whether their "unusual" technique will get found out at test level. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. If their techniques have flaws that international quality attacks are able to exploit with regularity, and they go back to domestic level and keep piling on runs even without fixing their technical flaws, that's a problem. They have flaws that domestic level attacks just aren't good enough to exploit, so they get away with it, but no matter how many runs they score they just can't be picked again. Gary Ballance was a perfect example of this for England. Did well when first picked in test cricket, but then his technique to found out and he was destroyed at test level. But he didn't need to fix his technique to keep scoring runs in County cricket. So it means that year in, year out, he will be among the top county run scorers, but the selectors won't give him much thought anymore.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I don't disagree with you. However, the way Lyon is spoken about so often, like it's just a given that he's the best offspinner in the world and all the talk about other spinners is always "who is the next best - behind Lyon" like it's always just a given that Lyon is better, and Swepson's 23 wickets at 21 v Lyon's 9 wickets at 43 in the Shield so far this year don't even come into it, it's hard to see Lyon getting dropped for Swepson any time soon. And that's where playing in a place where generally only one spinner is selected makes it hard. There are two other things that make it hard to see Swepson getting picked ahead of Lyon. Young spinners regularly take time to find their feet at test level. Warne's first year in test cricket wasn't great. Plus, India are typically the best players of legspin in the world. Even Warnie struggled against India. So I just can't see it happening unless Lyon goes 0-500 over the first two tests.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Agree with all your thoughts ivor except swepsons average is good in shield this year and lyon has a poor test average at mcg and scg so swepson could easily be rotated in to the side if the selectors do the math and upside of debuting swepson before any foreign tours . He's bound to perform just as well If not better than lyon at mcg and scg . Lyon is superb at adelaide with pink ball and good at the bouncy gabba which suits his spin much like Perth
Pierro
Roar Rookie
I don't pay much attention to rankings really Brian it seems to be a battle to win away from home now even more than ever , much less test cricket to go on as well especially during covid
Pierro
Roar Rookie
No need to pick a second spinner at scg or mcg but lyon has poor averages at both grounds at test level and time to start swepson at one or both of those ground in front of him as think he will do just as well if not better . Lyon outstanding at adelaide dn with pink ball and great at the bouncy pitch of gabba . The order of the tests doesn't help but the selectors should have a go at giving swepson the mcg and or the scg cap .
Ivor Biggin
Roar Rookie
Cannot understand the love affair that many of the commentators on here have with Burns and Wade and, for that matter, Head. All have been given more starts than my Victa but are consistently inconsistent. I think the first 2 are over 30 and Head must be getting on also. Time to give the young guns a go, and persist with them. Have also watched a fair bit of Swepson also and don't see anything special there. Seems to bowl at least 2 poor balls per over. Maybe I am spoilt having watched Warne for all of his career.
Punter
Roar Rookie
Exactly how I see it. We have a potential world star in Pucovski, why not play him. Pucovski & Green is the future, why not lets see them now.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
Langer was saying yesterday that he wasn't sure if he would start with Pucovski. If that is going to be his take on this, he should go. Players keep getting told to perform and you will be right. Instead he is looking at Burns whose scores haven't topped 25 this season, Test wise he didn't have a bad series last year but Australia did win each of the three tests by over 200 runs.
Paul
Roar Guru
Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Vas, but I come back to my original point. Right now, the Australian team is ticking along nicely in most areas, so why force a change, simply because two guys have done well in some Shield games, on pitches that were batting friendly, against attacks that were not even close to Test standard? The Australian way of selection has traditionally been to force guys to earn they place, but not dump incumbents unless they're underperforming and/or the team is not winning. Think about how long Mike Hussey, had to wait to earn his baggy green, because the guys in the Test side were doing enough to keep their places, even though he might have been a better option, based on form. Ditto with Gilchrist who came into the Test side at least a season too late. As for the Test rankings, as an indicator of performance, I accept the system that's in place. Is it 100% accurate, of course not, but is it indicative of the relative standings of teams, for sure. There are 2 points between Australia, New Zealand and India right now and as results in the past 12 months stand, that seems pretty right to me.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Ace good point and also better to debut green and pucovski on home soil than during the inevitable fail of ageing warner , wade or other previous openers abroad. Swepson has the perfect chance to get a cap in Melbourne or sydney where paines average is less than Impressive compared to the bouncy pitches in Brisbane and Adelaide