The radical change needed to fix Australia's T20 middle-order problem

Good start would be stop picking Alex Carey. Overrated. Quite ordinary at the highest level.

They are flexible, which why someone like a Maxwell comes in at 3 if the openers have a big partnership. I just can’t see Smith providing adequate urgency/power hitting in the death overs. Having someone who’s hidden from such situations is not viable. “Stay lower down if hitting’s required and guys like MM & Maxwell can provide that”. Marsh and Maxwell are out, coming in at 6 with a required rate of 11 with 4-8 overs to go, Steve Smith. Yep India, England, Windies etc are licking their lips. The t20 side could function with one of Marnus and Smith, not both.

"If Smith comes in after the 12th over, the opposition would be ecstatic." I'm not so sure. I don't get why batting lineups aren't way more flexible in this form of the game? If the order of say Finch, Warner, MM, Labuschagne, Maxwell, Smith, have plans that allow for the best player to come in early if a wicket is lost in the first couple of overs or stay lower down if hitting's required and guys like MM & Maxwell can provide that?

Yeah Smith at 5 is maybe fine. I agree about 5 or 6 being tough, but the only solution is specialist finishers rather than dumping class players further down. That only works for England and even so Stokes isn't that effective that late. If Smith comes in after the 12th over, the opposition would be ecstatic.

OK, those 65 in one innings and 29 in another means they contributed to an increase to an average of 17 balls. Admittedly that's higher than his overall T20 average balls faced of 15.5, but with only 9no innings in his 65 hits in T20I's you'd think he's left a few potential balls faced out there when he's back in the pavilion, wouldn't you? By all means though, CA should open with him in this next T20 WC, because we can all then look back on his career with no 'whatifs' as he'll have opened in his most preferred and most suited format, at the height of his powers, in the batsman's prime at 32yo.

In the last 3 games, if Smith batted 5, he'd have been in no later than the 5th, 8th or 11th overs, which IMO is still plenty of time for a batsman of his quality to assess how to go about creating a big total. Right now, we simply have too many guys who can bat as well as Smith at the top of the order and virtually no one (bar Maxwell or maybe Finch/Warner), who can bat as well as Smith down the list. In Test cricket, the toughest places to bat are at top of the order, so that's where sides generally have their best bats, eg Bradman, Ponting, etc. In T20 it's 5 or 6, so it makes sense to have a great player down lower than up higher, given available talent.

I mean 130 strike rate doesn't really back up the cause, Kohli's strike rate is around 140 in t20Is and I'd still consider him an anchor. I'm just saying he's a player that the team should bat around early rather than come in late. Normally at number 6 you'd face around 20 balls, I can't see Smith racing away in that time frame. He might be able to work at number 5, especially with Australia's recent nature of collapsing. I agree there is a problem that other than Maxi there's no explosive hitters, so Aus might need to reassess their strategy. Also a note on Rishabh Pant, he's been quite poor at the t20 international level, his true nature would be more noticeable in his IPL numbers.

I do. I have watched his yearly strike rate diminish from 176 in 2018 to just 124 this year. He is cooked. Absolutely beyond me that people can watch Finch now and not be concerned. Feet, hands, body constantly doing things wrong. Looks like a cat on a hot tin roof in the middle.

He is striking a 124 this year. Its just not good enough

Great point about the slower balls. :thumbup:

Something that might of been missed was that Wade kept when Carey was in the side. If Langer & the brains trust think Wade is the superior gloveman Carey taking over from Paine in tests isn't a certainty. Inglis might come over the top of them in all formats if he keeps making runs at the lower levels.

Fair comment. — 1) You’re right, T20 isn’t going away. Indeed, it is the most accessible form of cricket from a time and cost perspective. Likely we will see T20 cricket – indeed T20 franchise cricket – become the dominant form even more-so in the next decade, simply because it is the most accessible (which is not to say it should, or will, become the pinnacle form to aspire to). Even Tajikistan has a domestic competition – albeit the modified T10 version of the game. Nations that don’t have the talent pool or the financial capacity to compete in Tests/ODIs, can make it work through T20/T10. And the more of these leagues that spring up, the more that o/s players will find their career/financial niche in these leagues. — 2) You’re also right re that the powers that be (the ICC/national Boards) are chasing the dollar more and more – in so doing abrogating their responsibilities of stewardship for the greater good of cricket, given their monopoly on controlling the game. That said, the finger has to be pointed solely at India/Australia/England – what else can the other boards do but chase the money if they have any hope of remaining competitive against those three nations given their comparatively enormous financial capacities. — 3) Re BBL: Covid has obviously thrown a spanner in the works re o/s talent signing and hence re your point that club cricketers are being elevated to positions of recognition beyond their station, simply because they are playing. CA has an overseas players draft in the wings, but won’t happen till 22/23. This may help improve BBL quality, though competing with the concurrently played cricket seasons of the majority of other nations will continue to be a challenge – it’s what makes the IPL so attractive; not only does the BCCI have access to enormous financial sources, the April window is a real sweet spot re being out of season for most nations.

Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Quite wrongly the ACB have thrown all their eggs into the one basket, they have prioritised the BBL because it rakes in the cash. Which would be fair enough provided it was a world class competition. Sadly it ain’t. For the last two seasons club cricketers have been getting regular games in various franchises; certainly from my perspective it’s disturbing. I would have no issue with it other than the fact it impacts on the Test team. Look I have loved that Australia had won a ridiculous amount of ODI World Cups, but they achieved that on the back of both a stable and successful Test side. By chasing the dollar at the expense of cricket integrity makes me angry. I personally don’t care for T20, but nor am I so naive to believe it does not have its place. Yeah it creates interest outside the traditional fan base of cricket, but I am becoming increasingly worried that the powers that be view it as a panacea that cures all ills. Unfortunately it appears from the outside to have created an unprecedented epidemic of blokes being introduced into the current national side in an environment that compared to twenty years ago, their names would not have been remotely considered.

Yes his weakness against off-spin was wrongly taken as a testimony that he can’t play in Asian conditions without trying him even once. At that time I really got frustrated when Australia played four test in India and khawaja never got a chance, particularly when he had arrived in India with a terrific run of form. And yeah his wristy technique does help him in subcontinent conditions at least against pacers if not against spinners

Yeah I agree Smith is not an anchor, he in in fact our premier batsman in both legitimate forms of the game. However, I don't understand why it would be a good idea to drop him down the order to prevent a collapse. Surely it's better for him to go in at first drop before real trouble starts? In any case I wish he, as well as Warner, Cummins, Hazlewood and Labuschagne would stay right away from international t20 from here on in. If money's the thing for them they'll be able to play IPL well beyond their test and ODI use by dates.

I'd being Callum Ferguson in at 3 or 4. Has shown he can play at international level and looked a class above most of the BBL.

A couple of things striking about the WI series - firstly, noone except Wade for a couple of short bursts looked anywhere near capable of the timing and big hitting of the best West Indians like Russell, Hetmyer, Gayle. Secondly, the West Indies bowling tactics taking the pace off the ball were a lot smarter than the Aussies, while bowlers like Starc, Hazlewood and Meredith came onto the bat very nicely a lot of the time.

We are just a very terrible ordinary side at T20 Cricket. Plain and Simple. Not sure it's going to matter who's batting where. Maxwell will hopefully resolve a few of the issues. But I think Inglis is probably the one in terms of keeper. I'm not sure Wade at International level is going to be all that dominate...... Belting around Big Bash blokes little bit different to playing the best of the best of each country.

I'm guessing you don't follow a lot of iT20.

You missed the point of my response. I was replying to a comment where Arj compared Smiths batting to an anchor. I was saying with a strike rate close to 130,he's not that. As for his batting at 5, we don't have an Andre Russell type player other than Maxwell and that means we have to use the talents of those who are left. We also have to stop the sorts of batting collapses we've seen in the West Indies and again, the best bat in the side is best placed to fix that problem Smith is the kind of guy who can stick around, still make runs but assess the innings and decide what approach to take. If he'd batted 5 in the past 3 games, he'd have been in at overs 5, 8 & 11, which is time for a guy of his quality to have a few sighters then take control of the innings.