All posts by The Umpire

Shuffling a Weak Hand

2020-21 India in Aus, , , , , , , ,

Australia’s batting is very poor, and the cupboard is pretty darn bare.

Marnus Labuschagne is really the only batsman who can hold his head up after two Tests against India, and even he has only managed 129 runs at 32.25 in four innings. Cameron Green looks promising, but it’s too early to tell, and we should give him another few Tests at least before we draw conclusions.

So what does Australia do now?

Burns must go. It was obvious before the series began he was not up to the task, and his half-century in the second innings in Adelaide really should be discounted as it was made under little pressure. Now even the TV commentators seem to agree he won’t play in the Third Test. Dear Justin Langer, loyalty to your players is very sweet, but denial is not a river in Egypt.

So let’s assume Burns is a goner.

Marcus Harris should come in. True, Harris’ first nine Tests were uninspiring (385 runs from 17 innings at 24.06) but his form in the Sheffield Shield this season has been good (355 runs at 118.33 including a double ton and a 71) and he made scores of 35, 25*, 26 and 5 against India A and India in the touring party’s warm-up matches. Not the sort of numbers that make you do backflips, but better than what Burns offers. The selectors wanted Burns to succeed so they could persist with a LH/RH opening combination, but the right-hand batsman isn’t doing you much good if he can’t last past the first or second over, and that’s how poor Burns’ technique has been. Yes, folks, we’re picking openers (i.e. Harris) who stand a chance of getting to 30. That’s how low we’ve sunk.

There is still a suggestion that David Warner will be unavailable for the Third Test. If so, Will Pucovski should be given a chance. At almost 23 years of age, he’s still pretty green with only 23 first-class games under his belt (1,744 runs at 54.50), but he has 6 centuries and 5 half-centuries in that time, including two double tons so far this Sheffield Shield season oh please God let him be successful we so desperately need a decent opening batsman.

So if this all pans out, Wade drops into the middle order and Travis Head should be dropped. Head was given 19 Tests to make an impact, and his average is getting worse, not better.

But if injury strikes Wade, I would suggest the selectors give Alex Carey an opportunity, probably moving Green up to No. 5.

Carey has been pigeon-holed as a white ball specialist, but I see no reason why he can’t play Test cricket. For a start, he has a genuinely good batting technique, and is not merely a bash-&-crash merchant like certain other white ball sloggers who’ve been picked for the Test team in the past (e.g. Aaron Finch, Mitchell Marsh, Glenn Maxwell). Carey has a first-class batting average of 34.13, but his recent form suggests he is performing above that level. He played only four Sheffield Shield matches in the 2019-20 season due to his white-ball duties for Australia, but made 386 runs at 55.14, with two centuries and a 73 in seven innings. Since then, he made 106 in an ODI against England in September 2020. The selectors obviously suspect he can play red ball cricket, because they gave him a chance for Australia A vs India in a practice match prior to the First Test. He made 32 and 58 in that game.

And it would be nice if Steve Smith found some form. It’s difficult to be too hard on him because he has supported the entire top order for the past five years and one would think one of the other batsmen should step up for a change.

Paine, the Quiet Achiever

2020-21 India in Aus

One of the TV commentators (sorry, can’t remember which one) remarked during the recent First Test between Australia and India that Tim Paine’s Test batting average had risen to 33.40, giving him the second highest batting average for a Test wicketkeeper in Australian history.

It’s true.

This is a remarkable achievement, especially as Paine was picked for Australia in November 2017 when he wasn’t even playing regularly for Tasmania, was thrust into the captaincy a few months later due to the ball tampering scandal, and has not scored a Test century in 33 Tests. It is testament to his ability to chip in with helpful scores at No. 7 on a regular basis, a trait that has proven useful given Australia’s inability to find reliable batsmen to fill the No. 5 and No. 6 slots. Paine’s 73 not out in the First Test against India, when he top-scored and enabled the team to limp to a total of 191, is a good example of what he’s capable of.

Adam Gilchrist, of course, is unlikely to relinquish the title of highest run-scorer, with a Test average of 47.60 and 17 centuries. Brad Haddin, meanwhile, averaged 32.98 from 66 Tests with 4 centuries. Wayne Phillips averaged 32.28 in 27 Tests (2 centuries). Ian Healy averaged only 27.39, with 4 centuries from 119 Tests.

Paine’s prowess with the bat and his admirable captaincy after Sandpapergate (11 Test wins in 20 matches) has made it difficult for Alex Carey to break into the Test team. On the other hand, at 36 years of age he doesn’t have a lot of time left.

But if Paine keeps playing like this, one would think he’ll dictate his own terms when he comes to the timing of his retirement. When he does stand down, the accolades will be well deserved.

Kohli the Most Guilty One

2020-21 India in Aus

It’s good to be The King.

It was inevitable cricket pundits in both Australian and India would line up to condemn the Indian team for capitulating for 36 in the second innings of the First Test against Australia. But while the team has copped plenty of stick, I haven’t seen many critics single out the one player who really messed up: Virat Kohli.

The Times of India called India’s performance an ‘indelible blot’, writing the Indian batsmen were ‘frozen in fright, and eventually reduced to blind panic’. Former India captain Kris Srikkanth called it ‘pathetic batting’

Steady on. A bit too much hyperbole here.

For a start, not all the batsmen were guilty of poor batting. I agree with Sunil Gavaskar in his assessment that India’s collapse was due less to reckless batting than to one of the best spells of seam bowling ever seen. Hazlewood and Cummins simply bowled an extraordinary number of unplayable deliveries and gave no scoring opportunities. Bishen Bedi agreed the Indians did not throw their wickets away.

If Pujara, Rahane and Vihari had not played at the ball, they all would have lost their off stump. They had no alternative. The ball that claimed Agarwal probably would have gone off over off stump, but it was so close one can’t blame him for playing it. Saha played a rash shot and Ashwin pushed needlessly at the ball, but as the No. 7 and No. 8 batsmen, they can hardly shoulder too much of the blame for the collapse.

If one is going to point the finger at anyone, it should be Virat Kohli. The skipper was the only senior batsman to play a bad shot, and it could not have come at a worse time with the score at 19-5. As India’s best player, it was his job to steady the ship after a few quick wickets. He should have knuckled down and tried to weather the storm, but instead tried to impose himself on the bowlers at the worst possible moment by attempting an expansive drive. It is interesting the Indian media are prepared to jump on the team as a whole, but few are willing to directly criticize Kohli. The skipper is a magnificent cricketer, but in this instance he erred far more than his teammates. It was a difficult situation for anyone to bat in, but he’s constantly referred to as the world’s best player.

Head is Not the Backbone

2020-21 India in Aus, , , ,

How will Australia’s batting order change for the Second Test in Melbourne?

When David Warner comes back into the team for the Second Test against India in Melbourne, it seems likely Joe Burns will be retained and Will Pucovski will be made to wait his turn. I’m not convinced Burns’ half-century in the second innings of the First Test answers all the questions over his form, but for a coach and selectors searching for any reason to keep him and preserve the left-and-right-hand combination at the top of the order, it will probably suffice.

Which leaves us with Matthew Wade, Cameron Green and Travis Head competing for two places in the middle order.

The chat in the media seems to suggest either Wade or Green will make way, but I’m going to assume that Cameron Green’s great potential means the selectors will retain him and give him some more opportunities.

For my money, the selectors need to consider omitting Travis Head in favour of Wade.

For over two years, Head has failed to become the middle-order bulwark the selectors have sought. Although his batting average after 18 Tests is a decent 40.66, that average is declining. In his first 8 Tests, Head made 663 runs at 51.00. In his most recent 10 Tests, he has made 425 runs at 30.25. That’s quite a deterioration. He made 191 runs at 27.29 across the first four Tests in the most recent Ashes series before being dropped for the Fifth Test. He returned for the series against Pakistan and New Zealand (5 Tests in all) but has made only one significant score: 114 against NZ at the MCG in December 2019 (when Smith also made 85, Paine 79 not out and Labuschagne 63 in a team total of 467).

Only once has Head stood up to save the team from oblivion when it was under pressure, when he made 72 out of a team total of 235 in the Adelaide Test against India in December 2018 (India won that game). A batsman in Head’s position (i.e. No. 5) needs to do what his skipper, Tim Paine, just did in the First Test in Adelaide, when Paine’s 73 not out in a team score of 191 saved the game for Australia and won him the Player of the Match award. Head’s first innings dismissal to Ravi Ashwin, bunting the ball straight back to the bowler, was a terribly tame one.

Head had a decent Shield season in 2019-20, scoring 450 runs at 40.91 in six matches, and started the 2020-21 season well with 455 runs at 65.00 in four games, including scores of 171 not out and 151. This is undoubtedly why he remained in the Test team, but the cricket graveyards are littered with players who failed to step up from Shield to Test level and perform well against the world’s best teams (currently England and India). We’re still waiting for Head to prove he is up to the job.

Matthew Wade, on the other hand, appears to be enjoying a late career revival. Unlike Head, whose recent 10-Test average is well below his career average, Wade’s average is actually RISING. In his last 11 Tests, Wade has averaged 35.00 vs his career average of 30.85. In the recent Ashes series, he made two centuries (albeit accompanied by scores of 1, 1 and 0), ending with 337 runs at 33.70. In 7 innings against Pakistan and New Zealand in 2019-20, he averaged 43.40. He has only played two Shield games so far this season, but has 209 runs in 4 innings at 69.67, with two half-centuries. He also made scores of 58 and 80 in two of the three recent T20 matches against India, and although the difference in format may make such scores irrelevant when considering his Test potential, it could be evidence of a confidence that Head just doesn’t seem to exhibit.

Wade will turn 33 on Boxing Day, and Head will turn 27 three days later. Perhaps it is the knowledge that Wade doesn’t have too many years left that is allowing him to play with more confidence and fewer inhibitions than Head.

Head has been given plenty of chances. There is more than enough justification for omitting him in favour of Wade.

Small Favours by India?

2020-21 India in Aus, , ,

India have named Wriddhiman Saha as wicketkeeper over Rishabh Pant for the First Test commencing 17 December, and Ravichandran Ashwin over Ravindra Jadeja as off-spinner. I have no insight into Team India’s thinking and would be the first to concede they must have their reasons for choosing these players, but my gut feeling is they have done Australia a (small) favour.

There’s no question any team India fields will be difficult to beat, but it seems to me there is evidence to suggest Pant and Jadeja (if the latter is fit) might have made for a stronger team.

First of all, let’s look at the wicketkeepers.

Saha is 36 years old. He averages 30.19 with the bat across 37 Tests and has made 5 Test centuries, including 117 against Australia in Ranchi in March 2017. He has only played 3 Tests in Australia, making 111 runs at 18.50. In the practice matches against Australia prior to the First Test, he made two scores of zero and one of 54 not out. I’m not sure I understand the upside for India in picking a player who is clearly at the end of his career when a tour to Australia would be such a great experience for a promising younger player.

Pant is 23 years old and clearly represents the future for India. He has already proven he’s a dynamic batsman, averaging 38.76 over 17 Tests, with 2 centuries, including 159 not out against Australia in Sydney in January 2019 during India’s most recent tour. He also made 103 not out against Australia A last week in a practice match. He’s a dangerous player.

Perhaps Team India feels Saha is a much better ‘keeper than Pant. If so, fair enough. But he’d need to be far far better to compensate for Pant’s youth and electrifying batting. Saha is a very good player and is more than capable of hurting Australia, but as an Aussie fan, I’d rather Australia play against him than Pant.

Similarly, with Ravichandran Ashwin, India appears to have opted for seniority over form. Now 34, Ashwin has never played very well in Australia. He has taken 70% of his Test wickets in India at 22.80, but his average away from home is 31.44, and in Australia over 7 Tests it is 48.07.

Ravinja Jadeja has often played second fiddle to Ashwin, but in my mind is a far better cricketer. He, too, has taken most (i.e. 74%) of his Test wickets in India. He has played only 2 Tests in Australia over his long career, having been pigeon-holed more as a white ball cricketer than Ashwin. But there is something about Jadeja; an aggression and feistiness that makes him my favourite Indian cricketer. He saves his best for Australia, and one need look no further than the huge impact he had on the recent ODI and T20 series against Australia. What’s not clear, though, is whether Jadeja’s omission is due to the concussion and hamstring strain he suffered during the T20 series eleven days ago. If he’s still not good to go, then India would have little option but to go with Ashwin. Fair enough.

All four of these players can win a Test for India if everything goes their way and they play their best cricket. But as an Australian, I’d rather not face Pant and Jadeja.

Swap Burns for Wade

2020-21 India in Aus, , , , , , ,

It’s no longer up for discussion. The Australian selectors cannot afford to retain Joe Burns as opening batsmen for the First Test against India in Adelaide on 17 December. After scores of 4, 0, 0 and 1 in practice matches against India A and India – and 57 Sheffield Shield runs across five innings this season at an average of 11.40 – Burns has demonstrated his confidence is shot and his technique sadly lacking. With an average of 38.30 and only 4 centuries across 36 Test innings, Burns has never been a world-class opener, and at 31, he’s not going to start getting better.

With David Warner and Will Pucovski absent due to injury and concussion respectively, Marcus Harris has been drafted into the squad. With scores of 35, 25 not out, 26 and 5 in the practice matches, Harris hasn’t shot the lights out, but he’s more convincing than Burns. And with scores of 239, 71 and 45 in his three Shield games this season, his recent results suggest he’s learned a thing or two since his first 9 Tests led to 385 runs across 17 innings at 24.06. With openers dropping like flies, he’s a reasonable selection.

But if Burns is jettisoned – and he should be – who will open with Harris?

I don’t like the idea of shoe-horning Labuschagne into the opening position. He’s not in the team as an opener and I think messing with his position in the order could be damaging.

Bring back Shaun Marsh? I suppose it’s not the worst idea, only because Marsh – with the pressure off him now he’s left the Test team – is churning out runs in the Sheffield Shield with scores of 31, 110 not out, 6, 115, 88 and 135 so far this season (485 runs at 97.00). But Marsh is 37 and right at the end of his career. It would hardly be a forward-looking move to bring him back.

I think the best option is to elevate Matthew Wade to open with Harris. Yes, it’s true Wade doesn’t normally open in red ball cricket, but he faces the new ball in white ball cricket, so it’s not as if the role is completely unfamiliar. And although I’m sceptical of picking Test batsmen on their white ball form (remember Aaron Finch and George Bailey?), Wade is an incumbent member of the Test team and has been in good form with the bat in white ball cricket. Moreover, his two Shield games this season have yielded 83, 57 not out, 10 and 59. It’s far from a perfect solution, but with openers thin on the ground and Burns doing his best to drop himself from contention with a string of low scores, it’s difficult to think of a better one.

The only other possibility might be to draft in Alex Carey to open the batting, which wouldn’t be utterly crazy only because Carey is Paine’s heir-apparent and some time in the Test team might be useful for him. But Carey is not a red ball opener either, and his inclusion would mean either Green or Wade would miss out in the middle order. So not a great idea, really.

Justin Langer likes to show loyalty to players and can be blind to their failings (Mitchell Marsh, anyone?), so it wouldn’t surprise me if he retains Burns to open. I hope, though, that he concedes Burns is not up to the job.

Here’s my preferred team for the First Test:

  1. M Wade
  2. M Harris
  3. M Labuschagne
  4. S Smith
  5. T Head
  6. C Green
  7. T Paine
  8. Cummins
  9. Starc
  10. Lyon
  11. Hazlewood
  12. Pattinson

Marsh Recall Makes No Sense

2019 Ashes in Eng, , ,

And they had been doing so well. 

The Australian selectors have scarcely missed a trick during this Ashes series, especially with their savvy horses-for-courses approach to selecting fast bowlers, and their decision to prioritize accuracy over pace. Then they went and picked Mitchell Marsh for the Fifth Test at the Oval.

Oh dear. 

Despite coaches such as Langer insisting Marsh is ‘talented’, he has never proven that he is good enough to either bat or bowl at Test level. Selectors have given him far too many chances (a staggering 31 Test matches!) in the desperate hope that he will magically transform into a player far better than he actually is. Marsh was dropped after the Boxing Day Test against India in December 2018. In the seven Tests up to and including that match, he scored 225 runs at an average of 16.07 and took a measly six wickets. He went back to the Sheffield Shield, playing 7 matches in the 2018-19 season, in which he scored 467 runs at 35.92 and took 13 wickets at 40.46. Such numbers hardly demand national selection. He was then omitted from Cricket Australia’s central contract list for 2019-20. 

But now he’s back in the Test team at the expense of Travis Head. 

How did that happen?

Just two days ago, Justin Langer reminded us that Head is inexperienced and that Test cricket takes time to master. Fair enough. Who would disagree? It’s very true that Head has not impressed in this series. However, he is not the only one, and as he is only 25, surely one would expect Langer to give him more opportunities to improve. But no, soon after calling for more patience for young players, Langer has dumped Head. It’s inconsistent and hypocritical.

Moreover, the logic behind Marsh’s selection does not stand up to scrutiny for two big reasons.

Firstly, he has played virtually no red ball cricket lately and his few performances since being dropped last December simply do not justify a recall. Marsh played for Australia A in its recent 50-over series against county teams in England, when he posted four successive not-out scores – with a highest score of 53* – and took 5 wickets. This was okay but not earth-shattering, and was with a white ball anyway. Since arriving in England, he has played only TWO competitive red ball matches (one against England Lions, the other against Worcestershire), with a top score of 39* and taking only 2 wickets. How does this scream ‘pick me for the Test team’?

Secondly, the selectors say Marsh’s inclusion strengthens the bowling attack. Why is THAT necessary? The Australian squad includes no fewer than SIX fast bowlers, most of whom possess batting averages close to that of Marsh. Based on recent form, a number of them are in fact making more runs than Marsh. Heck, Michael Neser hasn’t even gotten a game on this tour, and he took 33 wickets in the 2018-19 Shield season while averaging 43.73 with the bat! The bowling attack has been the strongest performing part of the team throughout this Ashes series. Why does it need Marsh? Sure, the batting has been poor except for Smith and Labuschagne, but are the selectors really suggesting that a guy like Marsh – with a Test average of 25.39 and a first-class average of 32.12 – is good enough to bat at No. 6? He never has been, so what’s changed? Head has indeed been mediocre on this tour but with his first-class average of 39.20 and Test average of 42.70 after 12 matches, I would still rather back him than Marsh, especially if, as Langer says, the younger players need to grow into their positions. 

Trotted out to front the press, Tim Paine said Marsh has ‘worked his backside off’ and is fitter than he was. Oh goody. Everything will be fine, then. 

As the saying goes, ‘the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result’. 

Doctor, Is It Contagious?

2018-19 India in Aus, , ,

For several years now – and from before Steve Smith and David Warner were sanctioned – Australia’s batting in Test matches has been poor. It has been characterised by batsmen throwing their hands at the ball, failing to rotate the strike, trying to hit every ball to the boundary and failing utterly to master the Art of the Leave. Darren Lehmann used to say this was okay because the batsmen were ‘playing their natural game’. I always thought this was dumb. He apparently failed to realize their ‘natural game’ was very short in tenure because they were getting out very quickly. Some folks have said this phenomenon is due to the batsmen playing too much white ball (especially T20 cricket). I never really understood how this could be the root cause of Australia’s malaise because all cricketing nations were playing just as much T20 cricket as Australia but still seemed to bat far better than Australia in Test matches.

Perhaps Australia was just ahead of the curve. On the first day of the First Test against Australia in Adelaide today, most of the Indian batsmen played like……well…..like Australians. On a fairly benign wicket, all of the Indian top six except Cheteshwar Pujara tried from the outset to dominate. They tried to drive. They did not leave the ball. They got out, mostly caught behind the wicket. Rohit Sharma (who is to India what Aaron Finch is to Australia) is a white ball specialist whose dismissal was nothing short of moronic. I had never seen Rishabh Pant bat before, but if he approaches Test batting in the same casual and carefree manner that he played with today, I doubt he will be in the Test team for long.

Pujara’s fine century was a textbook example of how a Test batsman should drop anchor, disregard his strike rate and wear down the bowlers, then cash in later in the day. Apparently he is regarded as such a Test specialist that he doesn’t have an IPL contract. Commentator Harsha Bogle mentioned that Sunil Gavaskar used to tell other Indian batsmen, “Give them the first session, then you take the next two.” Brilliant advice. Why are so few Test batsmen able to do it? Australia’s Test batsmen have failed in this regard for some years now (Chris Rogers was arguably the last successful opening batsman to bat like a snail), but today’s performance by India makes me wonder if the white ball sickness has now spread to the Indians.

Make no mistake: Australia’s batting is very brittle and India’s score of 9-250 may yet turn out to be competitive thanks entirely to Pujara. But any self-respecting Test side should make at least 350-400 on that Adelaide pitch, if only they can see off the new ball, dig in and tire out the bowlers. If Australia wants to show they have learned anything at all about Test batting, Day Two will be their chance. I’m not sure they have, but we’ll see.

Selectors Colour Blind on Finch

2018-19 India in Aus, , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the biggest criticisms of Australia’s Test selectors is that they are inconsistent in their selection criteria. They imply that performance in red ball cricket is of paramount importance, yet they have in recent years rolled the dice on untested youngsters (e.g. Ashton Agar) or on players who have done well in white ball cricket. (e.g. George Bailey).

The Test squad selected for the first two Tests of the 2018-19 Indian summer is a reasonably sound one. It faces an uphill battle to defeat India because there is so little batting talent in Australia to choose from, but at least it’s consistent in that most of the batsmen can justify their selection on the strength of their red ball cricket, if for no other reason that there is nobody better to take their place.

Khawaja? Yes, fine. Travis Head? Well….I suppose so. Just. He’s been unconvincing but has done just well enough to get another chance given his youth. Marcus Harris is not a ‘bolter’ as the media has said. He has averaged north of 40 for both of the past two completed Shield seasons and is averaging 86.40 so far this season. He deserves his shot, and 26 is a good age to have learned his craft and to hit the accelerator. I hope Matt Renshaw gets his act together because he has youth on his side and just seems to ooze potential from every pore, but Harris edged him out, fair and square. Peter Handscomb might not make the starting eleven on 6 December but he, too, has a good combination of track record and recent performance. Even the hellishly inconsistent Shaun Marsh deserves his position based on recent performances. His brother, Mitchell, more assuredly does not deserve his, but the selectors have made it clear Mitchell Marsh will be picked if he can more or less stand upright. Yes, he made 151 against Queensland at Allan Border Field recently but who hasn’t made a score like that on that wicket? It’s a road. Put me in on that wicket. I’ll make 150, too.

But I digress.

The glaring exception is Aaron Finch. Why on earth is he described by all and sundry as a ‘lock’ for the First Test? Finch is a nice bloke and an experienced hand, but there is no evidence (and I mean none) to suggest he is among Australia’s top six red ball batsmen. After 79 first-class matches, he averages 36.58 and has made a mere 7 centuries from 131 innings. In the 2017-18 Shield season, he played 8 matches but averaged only 35.28 with only a single century. His selection is being described by the coaches as justfied based on innings of 62, 49, 39 and 31 in the 2-Test series against Pakistan in the UAE. Not long ago, Glenn Maxwell was denied a Test spot because it was said he needed to make hundreds. Now, personally I think Maxwell is overrated and does not necessarily deserve to be in the Test team, but if that is the rule for selection, why on earth is Finch a ‘lock’? It makes no sense. He currently appears to be out of form, but Finch is primarily a white ball specialist who swings hard for the fences without moving his feet. C’mon, he is not a Test batsman. I hope very much to be proven wrong, but if he opens for Australia on 6 December, I suspect he will fail against what is the best Indian pace attack to visit these shores for a long time.

If one is honest and logical, there is no place for Finch.

If the selectors really mean what they say and wish to strike the proper balance between performance and potential in red ball cricket, and if they absolutely insist on retaining M Marsh, the top six should be:

M Harris
M Renshaw
U Khawaja
S Marsh
T Head or P Handscomb
M Marsh
T Paine
P Cummins
M Starc
N Lyon
J Hazlewood

Personally, I would jettison M Marsh and play both Head and Handscomb with four bowlers (after all, Head can bowl some part-time offies), but as I said, the selectors appear illogically committed to M Marsh.

Paine’s position deserves plenty of debate, but we’ll save that for another post.

Square Pegs in Round Holes

2018-19 S Africa in Aus (ODIs), , , , , , ,

Australia’s Test, ODI and T20 teams all have their problems; some are common across more  than one format whereas others are unique to a respective format. As far as the ODI team is concerned, the biggest problem is the selectors have stacked the batting order with T20 bash-&-crash merchants who have a lot of brute strength but precious little technique.

The selectors appear to have missed the fact that the ODI format is more of a long form of the game than a short form. Fifty overs is a long time to bat. A top order batsman ideally needs to be able to bat for at least 20-30 overs (and preferably more if they can). If they get half the strike, that’s something like 60-90 balls. He/she needs to be able to negotiate the new white ball, dig in and build an innings and then launch an attack later in the innings.

T20 players are rarely called upon to bat for more than, say, five or ten overs at most (i.e. 30 to 60 balls). With half the strike, that’s 15-30 balls. Throughout Aaron Finch’s T20 career, he has faced an average of only 22 balls per T20 innings (yes, I looked it up on ESPN CricInfo). For Chris Lynn, the figure is 19 balls. For Glenn Maxwell, it is only 15 balls (because he usually comes in down the order). Players like this have great hand-to-eye coordination but next to no foot movement. When the white ball is coming onto the bat they just stand and deliver, but when it’s moving around, they inevitably fail. The selectors are flogging several dead horses.

But, I hear you cry, Australia has no decent batsmen in the longer form either. True enough! But successful ODI batsmen won’t be found in the T20 ranks. The selectors need to look at the likes of Matt Renshaw, Usman Khawaja (when fit, of course), and Peter Handscomb. Other potential candidates are waiting in the wings (e.g. Marcus Harris, Jake Lehmann – both of whom could just as easily be considered for the Test team at some point over the summer).

By all means reserve a couple of slots at No. 6 and/or No. 7 for the bash-&-crash merchants but without some technically accomplished batsmen in the upper order, the cause will be lost by the time the big hitters are asked to come in. By then, the pressure is on and the game is more often than not already lost. This pretty much sums up Glenn Maxwell’s career.

Sound batting technique is currently in desperately short supply across all forms in Australian cricket, but the T20 specialists are the guys least likely to display it.