I tend to agree Pierro. I would certainly have concerns over Warner for England, and to a lesser extent India. Perhaps reintroducing Renshaw in Sydney was a way of attempting to cover both bases, given his flexibility.

As much as I share your concerns on Warner, I feel the selectors will be reluctant to drop him. History says they tend to back him overseas, even when they probably shouldn’t. I hope I’m wrong, but I can’t see it happening. That said, we have different selectors to the ones that have picked him overseas for much of his career, so you never know.

I think you’re spot on about openers being a huge concern for England. I don’t think English conditions are ideal for Khawaja, and all three openers used in the last tour failed. In that regard, the back half of the Sheffield Shield will be crucial for the names you mentioned, and the likes of Henry Hunt, etc.

Regardless of who is selected to open in the Ashes, I think we need to alter our expectations. Opening the batting against the Duke ball in England against Anderson and Broad is really hard, particularly if you’re left handed. I would be very happy if we could have both openers average 30 in England, which is a much lower pass mark than Australian conditions.

I wonder if selectors are concerned about Travis Head’s performances in Asia, and view Renshaw as a potential 5 for the India tour. He seems to be a natural player of spin, and a good sweeper, so could be well suited to the role. Handscomb seems to be in the conversation too. My guess is Head plays the first Test, but isn’t guaranteed a place for all 4.

Aside from the issue of rain in Sydney, I think the broader point raised in this article about the scheduling of Test matches warrants discussion. Whilst the Boxing Day and New Year Tests have become a tradition in Australian cricket and are a real event for people in Melbourne and Sydney, the other Tests don’t have the same popularity and tradition (except maybe Adelaide, which is generally well attended, and has become synonymous with day-night Tests). I think Cricket Australia can do a lot more to encourage attendance at these Tests, and turn them into events that people mark on the calendar every year:

1. Hosting a Test the weekend before Christmas was a brilliant idea, and the 29K crowd at the Gabba was excellent. Even if it means pushing the New Year’s Test back a day or two to accommodate a larger gap for the players, they should consider the same timeslot again regardless of which city gets to host.
2. As the article mentioned, starting Tests on a Saturday would boost attendances hugely. Day 3-5 doesn’t get huge crowds even if it is the weekend. A Wednesday start for Perth this summer was ridiculous.
3. If they have to start a Test on a Thursday or Friday for whatever reason, play it with a pink ball to allow people to attend after work.
4. December and January tend to be the best months for public interest in Australian cricket. Perhaps a second Test in January, rather than a Test in late November/early December could be a better option. Often it feels like the Test summer is ending, when summer has only just begun.
5. When Perth is scheduled to host a smaller nation, play the game at the WACA. A smaller ground creates a scarcity and competition for tickets, and people will go for the historic value of the ground. The appeal of Optus is the shade, but they often close the top tier anyway.

Yep. Probably part of the reasoning. Take a risk-free draw (at worst) and head to India assured of a WTC final spot even in the event of a 4-0 whitewash.

Agree it’s the wrong balance for the XI. Agar, Neser, or Hardie should have batted 7 to allow 3 quicks and 2 spinners to be played.

Clearly they’ve got one eye on India. They wanted to give Renshaw and Agar a run, and picked the 11 correspondingly. In a way it will work- South Africa were never going to win this Test with Australia batting to 8. Even if the weather allows South Africa to survive, Australia secure the result they needed to make the WTC final, and tested a couple of players for India in the process.

I think the proposed balance of the team is a bit disappointing. To me the benefit of playing Agar was squeezing in a second spinner without losing a frontline quick. If he bats at 8, as has been reported, they would be better off with Murphy or Swepson.

Whilst I would only play Agar as an all-rounder at number 7 in Australian conditions, I agree that he could be really damaging in Asian conditions- his accuracy and flatter trajectory akin to Axar and Jadeja is ideal for the subcontinent, and could warrant selection as a frontline bowler in India. Maybe they just want to give him a run in a so-called ‘dead rubber’ with one eye on India.

I’d be happy with either Renshaw or Handscomb. They may view Renshaw as the better player of fast bowling, which is important against this South African attack (regardless of conditions). Both are excellent players of spin and making runs domestically, and should be firmly in contention for selection in India, where Warner and Head have struggled in the past.

The most puzzling element of Renshaw’s selection is that Marcus Harris is in the squad. Perhaps they view Harris as a specialist opener and Renshaw as a more versatile option- if this is the case, then they should have picked Renshaw over Harris to begin with, given the original squad contained just one backup option for the top 6 batting positions.

I think the suggestion to penalise the non-striker for leaving early with penalty runs is a good one. Every time the non-striker leaves early, award one penalty run to the opposition. If they deliberately leave early to manipulate who is on strike, award 5 penalty runs at the discretion of the umpires (like the penalty for deliberately running a short run).

I like the selection of Agar. It’s a neat way of including an extra spinner without sacrificing a frontline quick.

With 3 First Class centuries, and an average of 28, his batting should be fine for number 7, given the strength and form of the top 6.

Whilst his First Class record with the ball is modest, he will likely be more effective than his record indicates if conditions are suited to spin, and at worst he is an economical fifth bowler, capable of holding down an end if required.

He’s certainly a luxury, but a team with a strong top 6, and 4 quality bowlers can afford to pick a bits and pieces all-rounder at number 7 to balance the side.

Selection for Sydney will be interesting. Given the form of the top 5, I imagine they will go for an all-rounder, rather than an extra bat.

Aaron Hardie is an exciting prospect, but Neser has had a better season with both bat and ball, and could bat below Carey at 7. If Sydney spins then Ashton Agar is also a logical fit for the all-rounder position.

I reckon conditions will decide 7 and 11 from the below:

1. Warner
2. Khawaja
3. Labuschagne
4. Smith
5. Head
6. Carey+
7. Hardie/Neser/Agar
8. Cummins*
9. Lyon
10. Boland
11. Hazlewood/Morris/Swepson/Murphy

I think what is striking about Cameron Green is his ability to learn so quickly at the top level.

Against India in his first summer, he didn’t look like taking a wicket. He learnt from it, improved, and took 13 wickets @ 15.76 in the Ashes the following summer.

At the start of the Ashes series he was struggling to cover his off stump- bowled twice for scores of 0 and 2. He fixed it promptly, and made back to back 50s in Sydney and Hobart (the Hobart innings was particularly impressive in tough batting conditions).

He averaged 43 on his first two tours to Asia, in conditions remarkably different to anything he would have encountered before, including an excellent 77 on a tough wicket in Galle.

A naturally defensive player when he comes to the crease, he has developed into an impressive finisher in ODI cricket, averaging 58 with the bat (admittedly some red ink involved).

He was then asked to open the batting in India in a format he has barely played professionally, and made rapid back-to-back 50s.

His white ball bowling initially lacked variation, as he went wicketless in his first 6 ODIs. In 7 games since, he has taken 11 wicket @ 15.

When he was first selected, I assumed it was only a matter of time before Green would be dropped. Whilst he’s clearly a once in a generation talent, I thought that a player picked so young would invariably be worked out, before coming back stronger after a stint in domestic cricket to fix any issues exposed at Test level.

So far he’s proven me wrong, bouncing back after every setback, and adapting to every challenge thrown at him with bat and ball at the top level. This summer he is facing a new challenge that he hasn’t encountered before- shifting between formats, and coming into a Test summer with purely white ball preparation. Not for the first time in his international career, he’s struggling a bit- but when you consider how he’s responded to every challenge thrown at him so far, I wouldn’t bet against him to bounce back promptly again.

Interesting to see two bowlers brought in to cover one injury. I wonder if Hazlewood will be rested given his limited red/pink ball workload over the past year, particularly considering this summer’s tight Test schedule. Without trying to disrespect the West Indies, if he is going to miss a Test this summer, this would be the one to miss.

On Morris, clearly he’s earnt his call up through Shield performances this season (as has Neser). I just don’t know about playing him in the same team as Starc. Whilst Morris is clearly a wicket taker, like Starc he can be a touch expensive, conceding 3.64 rpo in his FC career, and 3.3 rpo this season. From the perspective of team balance, I think Australia are better off with one of Starc or Morris, and two more accurate, economical quicks (Cummins, Hazlewood, Boland, Neser). Given Starc’s performances can deteriorate towards the end of the Test summer, I would strongly consider giving Morris a debut later on in the summer (perhaps Melbourne) at his expense.

Surely it’s Stoinis that makes way instead of Maxwell. He’s now gone 24 ODI innings without passing 50, yet continues to be selected. I would think Agar, Zampa, two frontline quicks, Green, and Maxwell is a well balanced bowling attack in Indian conditions.

On another note, it can’t be long before people start asking questions about Marnus Labuschagne’s spot. He made a bright start to his ODI career in 2020, but has averaged 22 this year. Peter Handscomb is making runs at domestic level, and did a good job in the ODI middle order in 2019 (including in Asia), whilst Matt Renshaw continues to make a strong case in the 50 over format for Queensland. Equally, with Travis Head flexible enough to bat anywhere, Labuschagne could easily make way for Dan Hughes, who continues to churn out runs at domestic level.

I think the following top 7, along with four of Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood, Zampa, and Agar depending on the conditions, is a well balanced lineup.
Warner
Head
Smith
Handscomb
Carey+
Green
Maxwell

There has to be a strong case for Nathan Ellis if they go for a non-wicketkeeper as Inglis’ replacement. He offers excellent variety with the ball, and is very good at the death. That effort against England in Perth, when everyone else got tonked, was exceptional. I think he could seriously push the big 3 quicks for a place in the starting 11.

If Green is selected, I hope he’s encouraged to bat according to the game situation. Whilst his hitting in India was impressive, I feel his approach of trying to hit every ball to the boundary is likely to fail more often than not, and brought him unstuck against the West Indies and England. It’s also completely unnecessary (unless he comes in at the death) for a player of his talent to bat like that, when he can score at a healthy strike rate playing his natural game. Green is a once in a generation talent with the potential to have a huge impact as the all-rounder who balances the T20 side- he’s a versatile, adaptable, and high quality player, not a pinch hitter.

I think this is an interesting decision when you consider that the next ODI World Cup is in India. With the emergence of Cameron Green as a white ball cricketer, I think there is a case for playing just two frontline quicks at stages of the World Cup, allowing Australia to use both Agar and Zampa through the middle overs. It’s probably up for debate, but you can make a case for Cummins to be the seamer to miss out, given Hazlewood’s white-ball improvement over the past 18 months. I’d say the appointment of Cummins as captain suggests they only want one spinner, with Maxwell bowling the additional spin overs.

I suppose he would argue that his form has been better in T20Is than ODIs. He has averaged 13 in 13 ODIs in 2022, compared to an average of 30.87 (SR 121.67) in nine T20Is this year.

That said, I tend to agree with you. I don’t think playing a different format magically fixes his issues, and his strike rate has been a bit low for the last two years.

The other element would be timing, as you alluded to. The T20WC squad has already been named, and there aren’t that many games for a new captain to settle into the role before the tournament. Plus the idea of leading Australia in a home World Cup must be pretty appealing for him.

A good decision really. There was no way he was making it to the World Cup next year.

Despite his recent struggles, its worth acknowledging his significant contribution to Australian white ball cricket. An ODI average of almost 40, including 17 hundreds is a very solid effort, and his T20 record is excellent (probably the best we’ve had). His leadership of the team should also be commended, taking a serially underperforming T20 side to World Cup glory for the first time. I hope he makes runs tomorrow to bow out on a high.

In terms of replacements, there are plenty of options. Travis Head and Usman Khawaja are accomplished ODI openers, whilst Ben McDermott, Daniel Hughes, and Sam Heazlett have excellent 50 over records as well.

There is still the issue of the T20 World Cup. I hope he can turn it around, but his recent form doesn’t fill me with confidence. Does he move down the order? Do selectors drop the captain part way through a World Cup?

Overall, I agree with the sentiment expressed in the article. Australia’s batting selection is often more focussed on sticking to the established ‘pecking order’, than selecting players suited to the conditions. If you’ve done well in Test cricket recently, you supposedly ‘deserve’ to hold your spot, regardless of conditions.

I personally would be leaving Head at home for the India tour next year, regardless of how many runs he makes in the home summer. Peter Handscomb’s record in Asia is far superior to Head’s. Where Head gets caught on the crease against spin, Handscomb is more decisive with his footwork. I wouldn’t even think about picking him anywhere else, but I think Handscomb is a strong option for Asia. To me, Handscomb and Maxwell should both be on the plane to India to compete for that final batting spot.

That said, I hope Head gets another opportunity in Asia through Australia A. All things considered, he’s done a good job in the Test side, and deserves the chance to improve his performances away from home. Batting in Asia is hard, and can take multiple tours to learn- just look at the contrast between Usman Khawaja’s Asian record before and after 2018.

Warner is an interesting one. This conversation comes up after virtually every overseas Test assignment. I agree that his overseas returns are frustrating, but I would argue that for much of his career, a lack of alternatives have been responsible for his continued selection. When you consider that most Test contenders in Australia have a First Class average in the high 30s or low 40s, is an average of 33.5 in Asian Tests really so bad?

This time does feel different for Warner though. His form at Test level has been poor for a while now (home and away), and he is 35. Henry Hunt played an excellent innings for Australia A, whilst Will Pucovski (if fit) is worth another go. The upcoming home summer could be a good opportunity to ease in a new opener, before the difficult overseas tours of India and England (plus hopefully a WTC final).

I wonder if they’ll consider playing both Holland and Swepson.

Looking at recent matches in Galle, seam plays a very limited role. By the second innings it isn’t uncommon for frontline quicks to not even get a bowl. In fairness, there are some examples of seamer’s bowling 20+ first innings overs (sometimes with success), but by and large the venue is a spinners paradise.

Despite Starc’s respectable record in Asia, a bowling attack of Cummins, Green, Lyon, Swepson, and Holland could be the most appropriate for the conditions. Australia have successfully adopted this approach before in Asia, with a bowling attack of Cummins, Lyon, Agar, and O’Keefe, with Maxwell and Cartwright also bowling a handful of overs, in Bangladesh 2017.

My guess it that they’ll probably avoid this option, as it would require playing two unproven Test spinners. Holland and Swepson have largely failed to impress in their limited opportunities to date (In fairness to Swepson, the Pakistan pitches offered nothing, and he had catches dropped off his bowling). Equally, all three spinners offer very little with the bat, and would weaken a tail that normally includes Starc. If fit for the second Test, Agar would solve both problems- he’s a better bat than Starc, thereby improving the tail, and has demonstrated an ability to bowl in Asian conditions, with a successful tour of Bangladesh in 2017.

Have to feel for Nic Maddinson, whose Shield form has once again been overlooked. To me he was the logical selection.

As much as I like to see form Shield rewarded, the Maxwell fan inside me is wrapped to see him back in whites. He should have got a go in 2017-18 and didn’t, so it’s nice to see him get another opportunity. I hope he plays.

I wonder what this means for the composition of the bowling attack. There was probably a case for 3 frontline spinners in addition to Green and Cummins given how Sri Lankan conditions typically play. Could Maxwell’s spin bowling option mean an extra quick? Of course Agar’s fitness will also play a part in this.

You also asked about Finch. Like Maxwell his numbers are similar regardless of who bats first.

Some examples:
1. 121 in a chase of 270 at the MCG in 2014. It’s not 275 but close enough really.
2. He made another hundred in Perth later that summer in a 300+ chase. Australia lost, but largely because the next highest score was 26. Hardly Finch’s fault imo.
3. November 2014 against South Africa. Made 76 in a successful rain shortened chase in Sydney.
4. If we skip to some more recent ones, he made back to back hundreds against Pakistan in 2019, including 153* in the game where he bowled 10 overs in Sharjah. Both chases were 280+.

In Finch’s case I’ve left out far more examples, so the above is by no means a comprehensive list.

Apologies for the lengthy reply. I’m not sure 275+ chases are really the only metric. I think those are important for sure, but so too are innings where the game situation presented a challenge regardless of the target.

In light of your request, here are some examples. Some are more impressive than others, but you can’t seriously expect him to pull off miracles all the time.

1. Pakistan v Australia 2012 (3/9/2012): 56* (38). Target was 244, but Australia needed a run a ball when Maxwell came to the crease. Not a miracle, but a solid effort to guide the team home in foreign conditions.
2. Australia v England (21/1/2014): 54 (39). Target 301. The James Faulkner game. Faulkner was the hero, but the chase probably wasn’t possible without Maxwell’s contribution.
3. Australia v India (21/1/2016): 96 (83). Target 296. Big score in big chase.
4. West Indies v Australia (21/6/2016): 46* (26). Target 283. Got the job done with 8 balls to spare.
5. India v Australia (17/9/2017): 39 (18). Came to the crease at 3/29 (6.4) in a rain shortened chase of 137 off 21 overs. By no means a miracle, but an important innings as most of his teammates failed with the bat.
6. Manchester 2020 as others have mentioned
7. Yesterday

Sure this is just 7 innings. But he’s only batted in 45 run chases. Among those 45 chases are innings I’ve excluded because the chase was easy (the rapid 50 as an opener against the West Indies, 44* in the 2015 WC semi), and innings where Australia lost (60 (22) against India chasing 384, 59 (38) in Canberra last summer). There are also four not out scores less than 30, which don’t really deserve any judgement, and a range of scores in the 30s at a reasonable pace often in winning chases.

Of course there are also failures. There have to be. That happens to every cricketer. Bradman was dismissed for less than 20 in 27.5% of his Test innings. That’s Test cricket. When your striking at 120 in the late overs of an ODI, then naturally there is a greater level of risk involved.

Out of curiosity are you anti-Maxwell, or impartial and genuinely looking for evidence?

Maxwell’s ODI record by innings:
1st Innings: AVG- 35.6, SR- 130.94
2nd Innings: AVG- 34.58, SR- 118.68

His numbers seem pretty consistent regardless of whether Australia bat first. Sure the strike rate is a tad lower in chases, but still exceptional for ODI cricket- only 4 people have a strike rate over 120 in ODI cricket (min 20 innings), and two of them average less than 20.

Based on the previous T20 World Cup, I assume there will be 15 squad members and 2-3 travelling reserves. With that in mind, this would be my squad:

1. Warner
2. Head
3. Smith
4. Labuschagne
5. M Marsh
6. Carey+
7. Maxwell
8. A Agar (WC is in India)
9. Cummins
10. Zampa
11. Hazlewood

12. McDermott+
13. Green/Stoinis
14. Starc
15. J Richardson

Travelling Reserves: Green/Stoinis, K Richardson, Lyon

The pitch seems to be lacking grass, so could deteriorate and prove spinner friendly. With that in mind, I think I would pick three seamers and two spinners.

– As the article indicated, this will most likely be Cummins, Hazlewood, Green, Lyon, and Swepson. I wouldn’t rule out Agar though- his style of bowling is well suited to turning decks, and his batting would be useful at number 8. I feel selectors will go with Swepson, but I’d be very tempted by Agar.

– I don’t hate the idea of playing Agar instead of Green, and sticking with three frontline quicks. I would be less inclined to go for this option though, as Green’s bowling was exceptional during the Ashes. He’s perfectly capable of playing the third seamer role, and offers more with the bat than Agar at number 6/7.

I think the big talking point is ‘will Pakistan spin?’ A recent cricket.com article suggests that spinners have actually struggled in Pakistan recently, averaging almost 40 with the ball, compared to seamers averaging 30 (https://www.cricket.com.au/news/australia-test-tour-pakistan-pace-spin-bazid-khan-mitchell-swepson-conditions-afridi-hasan-ali/2022-01-11). That said, Pakistan tend to play two spinners, and three seamers, suggesting spin still has a role to play. With this in mind, I think the best approach is to pick a squad versatile enough to handle spin or seam friendly wickets, and I think the selectors have done that.

1. In fairness to Harris, he looked a lot better in Melbourne and Sydney, but I share the scepticism. I would have liked to see Maddinson tour, but I guess he’s more of a part-time opener.

2. I like the selection of Agar. He bowled well in Bangladesh, and the likes of Axar Patel have highlighted the importance of flat spinners in Asia. Obviously Pakistan may not spin, but if it does, it can’t hurt to have Agar there. Plus his batting could be useful at number 8.

3. I recall Hazlewood saying that he values Green as the most important member of the bowling attack. I think the bowling group really like having the fifth option, hence Marsh’s selection as a reserve. I like Maxwell, but surely he needs some FC cricket behind him.

4. In the COVID era you need to easily be able to replace any member of your XI at short notice, hence the selection of two-wicketkeepers.

5. I think this really depends on conditions. The numbers say Pakistan isn’t spinning, which gives Australia a chance. I think it will be really important for selectors to consider the conditions when selecting the XI. The truth is, it remains unclear how spin friendly the conditions will be. We can’t have a preconceived idea of playing 2 spinners because we always do in Asia. Conversely, the recent data about spin in Pakistan, shouldn’t discourage selectors from picking Swepson or Agar, if a spin friendly wicket is produced.