Matthew Hayden has called for an overhaul of Australia’s Twenty20 team, claiming selectors must follow the same ruthless approach as two decades ago to regenerate the side.
The post-mortem of Australia’s World Cup exit continued on Tuesday, with chief selector George Bailey defending several calls including the one to drop Mitchell Starc against Afghanistan.
Australia do not play another T20 until August, and selectors will first turn their eye to a one-day World Cup and Test Championship.
But for Hayden, significant changes must be made.
CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial to watch cricket on KAYO
The former opening batsman pointed to the shock axing of Steve and Mark Waugh from ODIs in 2002 as a model, which came just years after the 1999 success.
(Photo by Shaun Botterill/Getty Images)
Matthew Wade and Aaron Finch headline the names unlikely to be there come the 2024 T20 World Cup, but nine of Australia’s 15-man squad were aged over 30.
“There has to be some freshness,” Hayden said. “One of the great strengths of Australian cricket has been its ability to be able to recognise when to make that gear change into a different playing roster.
“A little bit like Mark Waugh giving way to someone like myself after World Cup campaigns, it’s always been quite ruthless in preparing for the next World Cup.
“They are the premium events that everyone across the world plans for. And Australia unfortunately just didn’t get it right.”
Hayden is still part of this World Cup as Pakistan’s batting coach, but on Tuesday added to the chorus of confusion over Australia’s decision to drop Starc in the last group game.
“Strategically not playing Mitchell Starc, our premium bowler, ahead of that game was really significant as well,” Hayden said.
His comments came as Bailey defended the move, arguing Australia’s need to win big meant they planned on bowling Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood for longer up front.
He reasoned Australia therefore needed the depth bowling of Kane Richardson, with Cameron Green bowling middle overs while replacing the injured Finch.
Bailey and coach Andrew McDonald have since copped strong criticism, with Shane Watson going as far as to say they deserved to be put under the microscope.
“Every time an Australian team goes into a major series or tournament … the expectations are very high,” Bailey said.
Pat Cummins and George Bailey (Photo by Steve Bell/Getty Images)
“We’re disappointed we’re not taking part from this point on in the semis.
“Specifically to Starcy … It was a tactical decision, it was a match-up decision.
“People can make of that what they will. And they are.”
Bailey also denied he and coaches had needlessly tinkered with the team in the lead-up to the tournament.
He also defended Finch playing through as captain, reasoning he became Australia’s anchor as he averaged 53.5 with the bat.
“I thought he played well and has bought himself time (to decide his future),” Bailey said.
“People were judging the batsmanship and not the overall leadership and captaincy package and the disruption that would have caused if you shifted.”
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Finch has never done anything another incumbent opener couldn't have done. He just got the gig (when others were better). His captaincy had good eastern states PR but it was nothing remarkable and certainly not irreplaceable. One of the luckiest careers of all time.
Clear as mud
Guest
thanks. well, with Cricinfo commentary as enduring as Hansard, he better look at it some time soon I feel for finch in that he tries, he cares. he just didn't do any good, everything he tried either made no sense or failed. oh well. time to move on. he would be widely applauded for his achievements, even after hanging on for 12 months too long (most of them do).
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Great post. Comprehensive. I wonder if Andrew McDonald watched it that closely.
Clear as mud
Guest
here are some specific tactics that baffle me: 1. Starc opening the whole World Cup. infused by 2015 World Cup and Rory Burns memories. 0-14 and the shoulder shrug. you beauty. 2. Hazlewood going lenth the next over - programmed, but not reactive. 0-15. you beauty. 3. Compounding the failing by numbers by going straight to Cummins, the lesser of the 3. No spin. No spin, no off-pace balls. Just more fast medium length. 0-17. you beauty. 4. Stoinis not Zampa, not Hazlewood in the 4th. Another 10. New Zeland headed for 280 (keeping them to 200 not bad from there!). 5. Going to Stoinis after drinks. 6 first ball. From Williamson the snail. 6. finishing with Cummins and Haze in 2 of the last 3, we had the RR down to 9.4 (190) but they exploded late again to put 200 -a scary number - on the board 7. Presumably a lack of clarity around what to do when we were 4-50 then 6 and 7 for 80s chasing. Cummins was still swiping at the end. Was he told to? Told not to? Or left to decide as an experienced player? 8. No Maxwell overs. Stoinis 4 overs for 38, no wickets, in a game where the alleged pacers were getting the treatment. 9. Bowling Maxwell one over, 1-5, against SL, and going straight back to pace. Over emphasis on "match-ups"? 10. Giving Cummins the last against SL. 20 runs. you beauty! 11. Finch's batting against SL. I know he wa strying to score, but really, Beefy can't be everywhere to run out the snails. 12. Giving Cummins the new ball against Ireland. He got a wicket. but went for 11. 13. After Maxwell and Starc getting 2 each in overs 4 and 5 re Ireland, who are 5-25, going straight back to Cummins. 0-10. you beauty 14. Taking the risk of keeping going with Starc. Beamers, byes and boundaries. 0-14. Understandable, but wrong move after the Cummins brake-release 15. Back to Maxwell now the breaks off? why? 16. Wade captain when finch goes off. oh. 17. Zamps and Stoinis put the breaks on, so it's straight back to Starc with an old ball with Tucker going off - 0-12. you beauty 18. After 10 overs, back to a cold Hazlweood, 0-12. Give Mitchy another go - 0-18. That's how 5-25 becomes 137 not 87. 19. Picking Smith when it was all or nothing for NRR. Therefore he had to bat 4. He can't bat lower. Therefore when he failed, it had to be Stoinis not Maxwell in case the collapse happened. Whereas Maxwell coming in with 50 on the board and 10 an over, it's the ideal situation. he will score quickly no matter what, and there would still be Mitchy, Marcus, Wade and Smith if he got 10 off 3 and got out. This is all hindsight and some of them make sense but with the exposed form and the repeat errors with the quicks, it reads as either poor game awareness of over-commitment to pre-conceived plans. For which the skipper should raise his hand. And walk. No shame in that, a brilliant career. which he will tarnish further if he tries to hang on and on. And certainly questions can and should be asked of the coach/es. Bailey came out today and suggested the team should always be able to make 140 no matter what. which is a bit silly. But it's a reasonable point re 7 above - is he criticising the players for listening to the coach, or not listening to the coach? Or the coach for not reacting (personally, I reckon, in real time, if our tonkers had pushed for 1's and 2's to aim for a "respectable" loss, that would have been a different world of pain at the time, but possibly vindicated down the track maybe we just should have batted first. )
Jeansyjive
Roar Rookie
“I thought he played well and has bought himself time (to decide his future),” Bailey said. What? Hugely worrying comment from Bailey, shows he is clearly to close to these guys to see Finch was shocking. Its worrying the narrative has gone from Finch retiring at the end of the world cup to buying him more time.
Chum
Roar Rookie
Hayden should stick to batting. One of the all time greats at that - but man management, captaincy - no. Was one of the legendary grumps of the side and didn't want anyone to speak to him before he batted lest it put him off his own internalised warfare in his mind. Not the sort of person you'd ever make captain of a side - and indeed, he never was.
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Strange comment from Haydos. "Chose the wrong team" but should have chosen Starc? Hello! He played all but one game and he struggled big time.
AJ
Guest
Australia lost the cup in first 5 or 6 overs in Game 1. Any BBL captain would have had the nous to arrest that onslaught or at least try something different.
Mike
Guest
Don Freo - Good point, what selection isn't tactical? Some of the dialogue coming from Bailey and McDonald is a bit worrying. I feel they should be stronger. Sure, explain their reasoning, but then own it and say something like "we got it wrong as it clearly didn't work. We are now looking forward and assessing the changes that need to be made." Anyway, I think Bailey and co need to be less worried about being friends with everyone and what people think, and more concerned with making the good (even if ruthless) decisions.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Was that working theory developed by IPL teams wanting Starc to play per chance?
badmanners
Roar Rookie
A great read re Starc and his fading stats/skills: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/mens-t20-world-cup-2022-how-mitchell-starc-s-lack-of-ipl-cricket-has-left-him-off-the-pace-1343635
Don Freo
Roar Rookie
Very good captain though. Mind you, this "it was a tactical decision" thing is weird. Do they think that's a good line? Surely every decision is "tactical". Leaving Agar out was "tactical" too. That was a poor tactic. It still staggers me that they are complaining about Starc being left out. Cummins and Starc were 54th and 56th most economical bowlers in the WC. Leave them both out. That would be the best "tactic". Selecting the same 3 NSW quicks for Tests and ODIs is "tactical" too. It's just a bad tactic. They have lost penetration, control and, it seems, they have lost interest.
Sayem
Roar Rookie
I dnt know what Goerge Bailey done enough to be the selector of one of the most prestigious cricket team. He was a mediocre player at his best. He averaged like 100 against india tour series. Then his batting technique faltered like house of cards. I still remember his ugly stance.