I’m not going to defend the performances against the West Indies.
To say that we’ve been poor is only to be honest. We failed to make 145, we capitulated in the face of 196, we again failed to make a score in the 140s, this time 141.
There is a place for honesty here, and by our own standards and the standards of the team we put out there – featuring the best hits of last year’s BBL and some of our front-line bowlers in search of form – we have been disappointing.
But let’s get real for a second or two.
The West Indies are only really a player away from their best XI, and it’s arguable that T20 is their best format. Their results of late have not been as good as might be expected, but they’re receiving the benefits of their T20 journeymen coming back into the side at just the right time.
The sport was made for Chris Gayle and Kieron Pollard. This is not something that anyone’s really saying: there seems to be a nigh continuous overemphasis on Australia losing as opposed to their opposition winning. It happened against India, and it’s happening again right now.
Secondly, take a good hard look at Australia’s XI for each of the T20’s so far. Tell me that you think they even remotely resemble our best XI.
Our best team features, in no particular order, David Warner, Steven Smith, Chris Lynn and Glenn Maxwell. Throw in Marnus Labuschagne for good measure. He’s had a decent last few years, and has shown an ability for T20 recently.
(Patrick Hamilton/AFP /AFP via Getty Images)
Are people truly telling me that they think we would not be performing better if we had some to all of these players in the squad right now?
Now, onto the reason I bring this up.
I get kind of annoyed when I see Australian authors catastrophising about their sports, or at least criticising in the wrong direction.
There is something to critique here: the fact that we clearly aren’t taking this T20 series seriously, using it as a way to find form in some of our players without it and potentially unearthing a player or two.
But that isn’t something that can be thrown at the results themselves, so it’s overlooked in yet another round of ‘let’s kick Australia for losing!’
There is a problem within our culture that’s only really come out fairly recently, inside the last ten or so years. It could be a result of the internet age, a closer culture to America and the rest of the world, or it could simply be the result of winning the cricket for so long due to the constellation of all-time greats we had in there for about ten or so years.
What it is seems to be is an expectation, a promise that if not delivered upon by the end of a match or a series, that has people not congratulating a worthy opponent on their victory or lamenting the loss but looking inwards for someone to blame. Call it the expectation of and entitlement to victory, if you like.
The problem I have with this is that it genuinely prevents you from examining why you lost or how it happened. That’s the part I find interesting, personally. You become so focussed on the ‘what’ that everything else blurs into the background.
So, fellow Roarers, you can kick the team if you feel you need to, but let’s be realistic. The reasons why we’ve lost this series are staring you right in the face, and there’s not a massive amount to be worried about.
What would be worth worrying about is if we’d lost this with a full-strength side. Then, there’d be cause for alarm.
Paul
Roar Guru
I hope you're right about getting rid of the one selector policy. It's such a bad move because it's so easy to think we're 100% right, 100% of the time, when it comes to things like selections
Ian
Roar Rookie
If you want to see a choke,check out England v Italy last Sunday in the Euro Final.Forget about the penalties,someone has to miss.England,playing at home,went 1-0 after 2 minutes and then in the following 2 hours didn't create a decent chance.Harry Kane,one of the best centre forwards in the world didn't touch the ball in the Italian penalty area,through no fault of his own.It would be like Australia picking Pat Cummins as Australia's captain at the Gabba and then letting him bowl and batting him at number 11...totally ridiculous.
Ian
Roar Rookie
I really don't think England's one selector policy will be around for too long Paul.I think it is just a knee jerk reaction to the Ed Smith reign where he seemed to be accountable to no one and basically did what he liked,eventually with disastrous results.Should England lose to India and get thrashed by Australia,as seems highly likely,I'd put money on an old fashioned 3-5 selector scheme back in place for next summer.
Derek Murray
Roar Rookie
For sure, our second best are a long way worse. BTW, please take a bow whoever thought to promote Marsh to 3. What a series he’s had. Heaven help us if he hadn’t played
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Well put Paul. I think there are disappointments that we don’t have the depth in T20 talent that we’d like to have, and that the batsmen didn’t keep their heads in the first match run test, but we shouldn’t get too cut up about it. And if we are going to lose to anyone, I’m least unhappy if it’s the Windies.
JGK
Roar Guru
Beat me to it.
Mike
Guest
I think you’re missing the point of why the team is unpopular. They are perceived as self indulgent, selfish and prone to picking and choosing who and when they play.
Paul
Roar Guru
What's bizarre? I've no idea what you're referring to. What part of Australian cricket is going badly? Granted we need more middle order Test batsmen and another spinner to support Lyons wouldn't go astray but apart from that, where are the problems you can see that suggests we're not going well?
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
Well if you really want to get real I’ll try another angle.. It’s T20.. Unlike other formats one player can more often than not can turn a match around in less than 30 minutes.. In other words it really is a bit of a lottery.. The Windies just lost a series in the Caribbean to South Africa who subsequently went off and lost to Ireland. There is nothing to read into the results…my experience as a South African over decades is that Australia playing us has never assumed any rights to win.. They’ve always been tough respectful opponents, the only exception possibly Steve Smiths team…but that’s another conversation….my take consistently has been that Australian Cricket have actually become more afraid of losing…..that stems from the most critical and demanding supporters and a brutal unforgiving media than anywhere else on earth.Social media has multiplied that massively… Players that used to feel free to express themselves now play with fear.. Fear of the consequences of losing.. Its a beast that feeds itself.. The more they lose the worse it gets.. Give them permission to fail with the proviso that they take those failures on board to be a better team and they will.
Shellbell
Roar Rookie
Do you genuinely think Aussie cricket is going well at the moment? If not, your solutions seem to be just "back our boys" and those behind them. It is bizarre.
Jak
Guest
Chris Lynn i think not. Usman would be worth a shot.
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
Bernie. Maybe those lower order bats have an appointment at 1500? Or they wish to take out their lovely Indonesian wife to a fancy restaurant? Let's get this chase completed in 25 overs!
Paul
Roar Guru
I don't get the lack of love for Hohn's. If he was the only selector, like England have now with Chris Silverwood, then fair enough because we probably both agree there's been some dead ordinary selections made in recent times. As it stands, he's had two mates to help him, so perhaps you should share your dislike around a little.
HR
Roar Rookie
I'd think that Jamieson has the quality to have displaced Neesham in the all-rounder role to be honest. Fair point on the team I named basically having two keepers.
Clear as mud
Guest
i am a mortal unfan of Hohns so can only imagine how great we would have been without him it's irrational and deranged. but in the words of Cracker, "I like it!"
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I guess that’s the problem with a format that enables a team to afford to lose a wicket every 12 balls – when it is not necessary to slog, they simply aren’t programmed to play any other way, to their detriment. It reminds me of the 50 over Sunday Warehouse games – the number of matches I’ve stood in where a team is chasing say 160, and they get bowled out for 145 with more than 20 overs up their sleeve … mind you, I’m not grumbling there, as the last thing I want as the officiating umpire is for a team to bat until the 48th over to chase down such a low target …
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
Good point, Paul. Perhaps hyperbole is part of the territory for these online forums. Moderate and sober analysis does get as many clicks and interest.
Paul
Roar Guru
It's funny isn't it, we expect guys who are not classed as batsmen, to adapt their batting to a high pressure situation and when they don't, we call it a choke. This is a huge part of the reason why I hate using that term and in this context I don't think it's right.
Renato CARINI
Roar Rookie
I guess they (the lower order) were expected to adapt. At five down, the bookmakers would have had Australia at a short price. Maybe choke is harsh but we were expecting better.
Tom
Chris Lynn? Hahahaha