As Australia’s T20 team stumbled their way to a dead rubber win at the Sydney Cricket Ground last night, Matthew Wade’s spot in the first Test at the Adelaide Oval next week was secured.
Australia again failed to properly capitalise on a great start with the bat, then almost fell apart with the ball at the back end, but Wade’s 80 at the top of the order continued his strong run of form to start the summer.
Limited-overs form should never decide a Test team on its own, but the numbers stack up in Wade’s favour, even if his last international summer in the whites was average at best.
Against New Zealand and Pakistan 12 months ago, Wade only managed a single half-century in seven innings. At 32 years of age, that is generally a sign of a career coming to an end, but the former keeper who has reinvented his role has the runs on the board.
Last night’s score followed 58 in the second T20, but more importantly, in his four Sheffield Shield knocks during the tournament-opening in Adelaide, he made three half-centuries.
He played important innings at crucial times for Tasmania and batting in the middle order against a strong Indian team, that may be part of the job description.
While Cameron Green is pushing for a spot and Will Pucovski is also in line for a debut pending how quickly he can recover from his concussion, Australia’s Test team needs someone like Wade.
Matthew Wade (Photo by Matt King – CA/Cricket Australia/Getty Images)
The Aussies have two positions to work out in the middle order, with Marnus Labuschagne, Steve Smith and Tim Paine picking themselves at three, four and seven respectively.
Wade can bring experience and form, and as a result, he must be picked.
Again, last night may not be the determining factor, but runs are runs, especially against an international bowling attack. Wade looked in control of his game, ran between the wickets well, and never once allowed himself to get bogged down like Steve Smith or Aaron Finch could at times.
While Wade was the shining light in the win, their woes in the shortest form of the game continued, and with a pair of World Cups on the horizon, it could be an embarrassing 24 months unless the men from Down Under work out how to play this format consistently.
Australia have never come to grips with winning T20 games and a large chunk of that would appear to be team selection.
They should have won this series against India. At home, not having to deal with the quarantine the tourists dealt with, and in difficult conditions, they could have used this to build some momentum.
But when things get bogged down and with Glenn Maxwell more interested in proving a point about reverse sweeping than he was actually putting the ball into the grandstand, victories can’t be expected.
Glenn Maxwell (Scott Barbour/Getty Images)
Sure, it was a dead rubber and Australia won, but they should have scored more, and they struggled to bowl the 20 overs with any real consistency.
David Warner and Pat Cummins may have missed this series and they are about as close to irreplaceable as it gets, but it’s unacceptable to put losing a series at home down to the loss of two players.
As we move towards the aforementioned World Cups, Australia must bite the bullet on changes and the biggest among them is Steve Smith.
His 24 at a run a ball last night was great… for ODI or Test cricket. But in T20, it was slow and dug his team a hole. Wade and Maxwell did their utmost to get them out of it and while the end score was enough to win, it should have been more – as was the feeling in both Games 1 and 2.
Then there is the middle order, which feels disjointed and like a revolving door, with Moises Henriques, Daniel Sams and Sean Abbott in the side last night, but none looking like they’ll hold a spot down long-term.
The only real bright spot with the ball this series has been Mitch Swepson, who picked up three wickets last night and has bowled economically all the way through in some high-scoring games.
While he is now 27, he is experienced in the shortest form of the game and is a player Australia can look to build around for the next two years.
But, for now, limited-overs cricket will go on the back burner. The SCG lights up for a day-night tour game on Friday, which will be critical to solving the final spots in the Australian team for the first Test. Then, it’s on to Adelaide.
Fans can only hope Matthew Wade is in the line-up next Thursday at 3pm.
HR
Roar Rookie
Or for six, as is the case with those chips that Maxwell occasionally plays by backing away and hitting over backward point.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Not to mention that if he'd had more support we would have won the series outright!
JamesH
Roar Guru
Wade spends more time keeping for Tasmania than Philippe does for WA, so I'm still not sure what your logic is re Philippe. He's not that highly rated as a keeper either. It's not creative to play a specialist keeper, it's retrograde. It's the sort of thing teams did a decade ago, before they worked out that it was generally more beneficial for team balance to play a batsman-keeper, not a keeper-batsman. Henriques bats at 4 for the Sixers, which puts him in a much better position to move down to 6 than someone who opens. Stoinis and Marsh have also spent plenty of time in the middle order, even though Stoinis opened for the Stars last BBL. There is absolutely no reason to think that Inglis or Philippe would offer as much or more with the bat at 6 than any of those guys, and that's before you factor in that all of them can offer a useful bowling option. FWIW I wouldn't play Short unless he was batting top 3, either. I'm not opposed to experimenting with Inglis or Philippe as a middle order bat in T20s but the national side is not the place to do it. Get them into the middle order in the BBL and see if they can put together some consistent performances, then promote them. At full strength I see our T20 batting lineup as something like: Finch Wade Warner Smith Maxwell Henriques/Stoinis/Marsh Agar Cummins Starc Swepson/Richardson Zampa Wade could potentially shuffle down to 5/6 to keep the Finch/Warner combo. I'm really not sure which of those guys you think should miss out so we can play a specialist keeper, and how that would strengthen our side.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
I struggle to find the issue in this case that people seem to have. There's a vast, vast difference to scoring a 4th innings hundred in a match meandering to a draw on a featherbead wicket. 4th innings hundred in a realistic run chase or attempt at avoiding defeat when all around you fail - - - there's a huge amount to be taken from that. If you can hold your head when those around you lose theirs..... In this scenario - chasing a hefty 399 to win - he came in at 3/56 but partnering "the man" in Steve Smith. So.....task number 1 - stick with Smith (tick). Smith next out at 4/85. Next task - take the lead with #6 Mitch Marsh coming in. Partnership of 63 with Marsh making 24 (tick). Okay - now it's tricky at 5/148. Captain Paine comes in - again - job of Wade - take control and see how long Paine can stick with him (tick). 52 run partnership, Paine 21 - out at 6-200.....and just over half way to the target. Cummins and Siddle..........chance of a miracle?? Well - - of course at 8-122 in Birmingham if Smith had of discounted the ability of Sidds then Australia may have been 0-1 down. So - 44 runs added with Cummins (9) (tick).......and finally Wade is out at 8-260 on a spinning track and Sidds ends not out Lyon and Hazlewood both fail cheaply. So.....to me - - that's a century of huge character and ability. To discount it out of hand just because it was a 4th innings effort is showing a poor contextual understanding.
Anth
Roar Rookie
Don't necessarily agree Ben, I know a couple of his concussions at senior level have been when fielding and running between the wickets. I watched him bat in both Shield matches and he seemed to love the short stuff. All the same the timing of him receiving a concussion couldn't be worse.
13th Man
Roar Rookie
Who has earnt number 6 or 7 though? Short? Henriques? Stoinis? Marsh? None of them bat that low in BBL and hence none of them have the runs on the board in international cricket to earn those spots. No matter who you put there, it's going to be a player who bats in the top 4 in Big Bash cricket, because all the best bats bat top 4 in BBL. I'm throwing out names such as Inglis and Philippe as I believe both are better glovemen than Wade and have the ability to bat down the order if necessary. I'm not saying drop Wade, I'm saying he isn't good enough as a wicket keeper, I'd absolutely stick with him as a top order bat as he's brilliant in that role. You've gotta get a bit more creative and I think picking a really good wicket keeper, such as Inglis and turning him into a number 6 or 7 might be the way to go. The Scorchers this year have Roy, Munro and Livingston so he may have to bat further down the order and that may create the perfect opportunity. Wade isn't up to it with the gloves, in any format of the game, he barely keeps for Tasmania, he isn't the answer.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
That's right. We are talking about this season, aren't we. Prior to that is irrelevant when age is a factor. The average is the product of end of game not outs. 3 50s, (7 innings) is more than half his scores under 50. No tons.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Your first comment is a matter of opinion, and I strongly disagree. You're talking about a bloke who has been an adequate Shield wicket keeper for over a decade, and then saying Philippe - who is struggling to get a Shield game - is a better keeper. I can't see any justification for that. Wade isn't test calibre with the gloves but he doesn't have to be in T20s. By all means, mould Inglis and Philippe into middle order finishers. Just do it in the BBL. Until then, they don't justify pushing out other players who have actually earned a spot at 6-7. Australia's current model is to play 5 bowlers (with Agar/Abbott at 7), meaning you'd have to bat one of them at 6. Can't see how you do that without weakening our batting and also cutting out a change bowling option. It would be a net negative result.
JamesH
Roar Guru
That's staggeringly wrong. If anything, the criticism is the opposite - he gets to 70-80 and gets out. He has 17 hundreds and 49 50s in his FC career. Just take a look at his last two-and-a-half Shield seasons: 2018/19 - 20 innings, avg. 60, 2 hundreds and 8 50s 2019/20 - 7 innings, avg. 59, 0 hundreds and 3 50s 2020/21 - 4 innings, avg. 70, 0 hundreds and 3 50s That's better than half of his 31 innings (16) reaching 50+, at an average over 60, while only scoring 2 hundreds. He's been a model of consistency. Failing to 'pull out a big one' is the only area in which he's let himself down.
13th Man
Roar Rookie
Wade doesn't do a "decent" job with the gloves, he does a poor job. Both Inglis and Phillippe have done their best work at the top of the order but are young enough to be moulded into finishers for the national side. In Phillippes' first season at Sydney. he batted at 5/6 and had success there and hence was moved up to open because of good form in the middle. Ditto Inglis at Perth. Both are far superior glovemen to Wade.
JamesH
Roar Guru
I think you'll find that a century in a losing side is pretty much living the dream :silly:
Rob
Guest
Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood are clearly the best 3 bowlers we have. How does them being from NSW have anything to do with it?
JamesH
Roar Guru
No, I said they wouldn't hold a *spot* as a batsman alone, not that they don't hold *up* as batsmen. And I say that as a fan of both of them. Inglis -who I think is every chance of succeeding Paine as the next test keeper - doesn't warrant selection as a T20 batsman alone, although a big BBL might change that. Philippe is currently a smidge closer but he's not necessarily a better choice to take the gloves than Wade is. And the main problem with both of them is that they do their best work at the top of the order, which is not where we need a batsman. We already have too many guys who prefer to bat there. If we open with a combination of Wade, Finch and/or Warner then Inglis or Philippe would have to bat down the order where they are unproven in T20s. And the only way to do that would be to put them at 6 or 7, which takes up the spot of an allrounder or an extra bowler. In T20 cricket there is absolutely no point in playing a specialist keeper if you have a batsman who can do a decent job with the gloves. Whatever you might gain from saving the odd bye is likely going to be lost in batting and/or bowling by squeezing another player out. Too few deliveries even reach the keeper. In ODIs it's a bit more justifiable, and is obviously essential in tests.
Censored Often
Roar Rookie
I think you're right as the lure of Indian cash seems much stronger than the prestige of earning and representing the baggy green but I'm not sold that T20 isn't ruining technique. Only time will prove me right or most likely wrong.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think the shot that does that more than anything isn't the reverse slog, it's the ramp, or any other sort of shot able to hit a yorker for 4. If you are able to get a yorker to the fence then you are probably going to get a lot more hittable balls.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
At junior level, it was a head collision playing footy, not playing a short ball. One of his three senior concussions was fielding at short leg. Context, Ben.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
BBL strike rate of 129, average of 36. Care to challenge that?
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Wade has not been "destroying Shield attacks" at all. He fails regularly then pulls out a big one.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
He was only GIVEN 4 overs. He was actually "allowed" 4 overs a session. Do you remember Steketee's bowling? Green wasn't needed.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
12 overs in a game for 2/21 will do for any top order batsman who also scores hundreds at will. Not sure we can expect that bowling or batting from Wade or Head.