Tag Archives: Burns

Easy Runs Are Worth Less

2020-21 India in Aus, , , ,

No, not worthless, just worth less.

Simply put, centuries scored on Australian pitches against the likes of West Indies and Pakistan are just not worth as much as those scored in away series against India and England. When defending underperforming batsmen, coaches and captains often point to a player’s past scores as evidence of his ability to play at Test level, but they fail to apply a filter. Not all Test runs are created equal. Mediocre players can compete against weaker teams in friendly batting conditions, but fail consistently when the chips are down in tough matches against strong teams. I’ve written about this before, when lamenting Usman Khawaja’s inability to perform at Test level when required.

Why is Steve Smith so good (prior to the current series, at least!)? Just in the past four years (going back to Feb 2017), he has played in four Tests in which he was the only batsman from either side to score a century (twice in India in early 2017, one against England at the Gabba in Nov 2017 and again at Old Trafford in Sep 2019). That’s actually quite unusual, especially against good teams. In that time, he made four other centuries as well, but was not the only player in the match to do so. And in that four year period, he won four Player of the Match awards for setting his team up for victory with a big first innings score. This is, of course, his job, and it’s why he is the cornerstone of the batting lineup.

But it’s also the job of the other batsmen in the top six.

Joe Burns and Travis Head have not managed to do this job because they aren’t good enough, and it should be obvious.

Take Burns: In 40 Test innings, Burns has scored four Test centuries, but NEVER has he been the only batsman in the match to score a ton. Not once. When Burns gets runs, lots of others do, too. In three out of four cases, THREE other players in the same match also made tons when Burns did, and in the fourth case two players made centuries and the third (Kane Williamson) made 97.

  • 129 vs NZ, Gabba, Nov 2015: Also, D Warner scored 163 and 116, U Khawaja 174, K Williamson 140.
  • 128 vs W Indies, MCG, Dec 2015: Also, U Khawaja scored 144, S Smith 134, A Voges 106
  • 170 vs NZ, Christchurch, Feb 2016: Also, B McCullum 145, S Smith 138, K Williamson 97
  • 180 vs Sri Lanka, Canberra, Feb 2019: Also, T Head 161, K Patterson 114, U Khawaja 101

And Burns has had little opportunity to prove himself against the stronger teams (which isn’t his fault, of course). He has only played four Tests against India – his first two Tests in 2014-15 and the most recent two Tests in Australia in December 2020 – and has never played a Test against England. He has only played two Tests against South Africa (in 2016 and 2018, when the Proteas were stronger than they are now), making scores of 1, 0, 4 and 42. In contrast, eight of his 23 Tests have been against New Zealand.

Meanwhile, Burns continues to push his hands at the ball and leave a gap between bat and pad you could drive a lorry through. It’s easy being an armchair critic (fun, too!) but why can’t the coaches see this?

It’s a similar tale for Travis Head. In 31 Test innings, he has only scored two Test centuries, the first of which was the game against Sri Lanka in Feb 2019 (see above) in which Burns, Patterson and Khawaja all got BIG runs. The second was against New Zealand in Dec 2019 at the MCG, where he scored 114 while Smith scored 85, Paine 79 and Tom Blundell 121. I’ve analyzed Head’s returns before but suffice it to say, Head has not demonstrated an ability to lead the team to victory with the bat and continues to either slash the ball to gully or the slips, or play back and get rapped on the pads.

What about Matt Wade? His 59 Test innings have been spread out over almost nine years. Wade’s first two Test centuries (106 against West Indies in Apr 2012 and 102* against Sri Lanka in Jan 2013) were both achieved in matches in which no other player reached three figures. The same is true of his fourth ton in 2019 against England at The Oval, when he made 117 in the second innings when no other batsman in his team scored more than 24 (the team folded for 263 chasing 399 to win). His fourth century (110) was made against England in 2019 when he formed a 126-run partnership with Steve Smith, helping set England a target of 398. England fell 251 runs short and Australia took a 1-0 lead in the Ashes, which they eventually retained, so Wade’s innings was important. To be sure, Wade’s contributions of late have been frustrating in that he hasn’t managed to go on past 40, but his recent scores have been getting better rather than worse, which can’t be said for Burns and Head. This is why, I suggest, Burns and Head are on the chopping block whereas Wade seems likely to hold on (for now).

And Marnus?

The jury is still out.

Believe it or not, Marnus has still only played 27 Test innings across 16 Test matches. For two of his four centuries – 185 against Pakistan at the Gabba in Nov 2019 and 215 against New Zealand at the SCG in Jan 2020 – he won the Player of the Match award for setting his team up with a big first innings total. However, for only one of his tons was he the sole centurion in the match (143 vs NZ in Perth in Dec 2019) and he has yet to make a century against either England or India.

  • 185 vs Pak, Gabba, Nov 19: Also, Warner 154, B Azam 104
  • 162 vs Pak, Adelaide, Nov 19: Also Warner 335, B Azam 97, Yasir Shah 113
  • 143 vs NZ, Perth, Dec 19: No other centuries in the match
  • 215 vs NZ, SCG, Jan 20: Also, Warner 111.

So clearly the pressure is on Marnus to prove his early success wasn’t just the result of easy games at home against weaker sides. His 353 runs at 50.43 in the 2019 Ashes away series (including four successive half centuries) obviously gave the selectors reason to be optimistic, but he needs to back it up with a big score against India.

Do, or do not. There is no ‘try’.

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.

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.

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

Zombies Live!

2017-18 Ashes in Aus, , , , ,

The zombie cricketers are alive and kicking.

By zombies, I mean those players who refuse to die. They have tried and failed at Test cricket, then gone back to state cricket and performed well enough to at least come back into contention for a Test recall.

Tim Paine is perhaps the greatest zombie of them all, having been dead and buried until his shock recall for the Ashes. He fluffed a catch in Brisbane but also pulled off an excellent stumping and made a stylish 57 in the first innings in Adelaide. There would appear to be life in the old boy yet. At the very least, he has not embarrassed the selectors.

The other obvious zombie, of course, is Shaun Marsh, who not only won a recall for the Ashes but won player of the match in the 2nd Test in Adelaide with an excellent ton. Trevor Hohns and Team must be enormously relieved.

Elsewhere, discarded Test opener Joe Burns has lurched back into the selectors’ sights with 514 runs at 57.11 in his first ten Sheffield Shield innings this season, including scores of 70, 81, 103 and finally 202 not out against South Australia in Round Four.  But Cameron Bancroft is likely to get a few more games yet, so Burns will probably have to bide his time.

Perennial zombie Glenn Maxwell has cracked 590 runs at 73.75 so far this Shield season, with scores of 60, 64, 278 and 96. One would have to think Maxwell has his eye on the No. 5 Test slot currently occupied by the hopelessly out-of-form Peter Handscomb.  Will the selectors let Handscomb play out the series as they did with George Bailey four years ago? As it was with Bailey, they might if the team keeps winning.

And lastly there is Mitchell Marsh, arguably the most disappointing Test cricketer of the past half-decade. Finally sent back to WA after 21 Tests in which he averaged only 21.74 with the bat and took only 29 wickets at 37.48, Mitchell has scored 402 runs at 44.67 in the Shield this season, including scores of 95 and 141. The selectors took a lot of stick for persevering with Mitchell for so long, so one wonders how well he must do at state level – and for how long – before he gets another chance at Test cricket.

Feed them braaains….

 

Looking for Rock Bottom

2016-17 S Africa in Aus, , , , , , , , , ,

Most professional sporting teams experience fluctuations in form. A team doing badly will more often than not improve at some point. A strong team will eventually do less well. Rankings go up and rankings go down. After Australia was bowled out for 85 on the first day of the Second Test against South Africa in Hobart (after losing 10-86 in the first innings of the First Test in Perth), one might legitimately ask if the team is nearing rock bottom; i.e. approaching a nadir after which positive change might occur, even if it is by accident.

Not likely. I suspect rock bottom will not be found until after the tour of India next February. Until then, it’s going to be very ugly.

One of the worst Australian Test teams of recent memory has managed to lose the series against South Africa within the first hour in Hobart, losing 5-17.

Next, the world’s No. 1 Test team – Pakistan – will visit Australia for three Tests. Pakistan has good pace bowlers, good spinners and good batsmen (which, er, is why they are No. 1). It seems unlikely an Australian team this lacking in heart and skill will be any match for them. Then, unfortunately, India in February 2017 is simply a bridge too far. Beating India in India is like climbing Everest in a bikini and even a strong Australian team – which we do not have – would struggle. A result other than 4-0 to India seems inconceivable.

So there is a real chance that Australia’s string of consecutive Test losses – which will reach 5 when it loses the Second Test  against the Proteas in Hobart – could extend to as many as 13 (!) if Australia also loses the Third Test against South Africa (which seems likely) and plays a similar quality of cricket against Pakistan.

Only then can we start to talk about the team hitting rock bottom.

Only three players really can justify their positions in the team at present: Warner, Smith and Starc (four if you want to add Hazlewood). As for the rest, if you replaced any or all of them with peers currently playing Shield cricket (Kurtis Patterson or Peter Handscomb  are candidates for the middle order, but there are others), you could not do any worse. Trouble is, the selectors could not replace so many players in one go as if would be a sign of panic. As it is, only the fans are panicking.

Joe Burns and Usman Khawaja, for example, are both out of their depth. When they have made runs in the past, it has usually been against average (NZ) or weak (West Indies) teams or on flat pitches where the ball comes straight on to the bat. Neither has displayed any competence against the swinging or spinning ball. Same goes for Adam Voges, whose first-ball duck in Hobart helps to confirm suspicions that age is catching up with him. The selectors have (correctly) dumped Mitchell Marsh and might be persuaded to get rid of Voges, but having only just reinstated Burns and Khawaja, are unlikely to axe them again so soon. We are, therefore, probably stuck with both of them even if Voges is dropped.

As we and others have said, the Aussies can hit but they can’t bat (see Hitting vs Batting, and the Invisible Man). The Australians’ complete and utter absence of skill against the swinging, seaming or spinning ball over the past five years or so suggests there is no quick fix. The coaching must be called into question. The turnaround will take a long time.

Darren Lehmann’s blokey she’ll-be-right attitude is wearing thin, and his insistence on ‘playing our natural game’ betrays an alarming lack of awareness of the problem. The Australians’ ‘natural game’ does not work in the Test arena and unless Lehmann acknowledges this, nothing will change. It is only five years since Australia was all out for 47 against South Africa in Cape Town, just over a year since it was dismissed for 60 by England in Nottingham, only three months since it folded for 106 against Sri Lanka in Galle, and only a week or so since it lost 10-86 against South Africa in Perth. Now today it has been bowled out for 85. Lessons are not being learned. Basic Test batting skills are not being acquired. Lehmann’s honeymoon has been over for a while and he desperately needs to turn things around. However, the more time goes on, the worse the batting seems to get. Will he be sacked after the series loss to Pakistan or will Cricket Australia wait until the India series is lost?

It is ironic that Lehmann’s team may well face Pakistan after six successive Test losses (assuming they lose the Third Test to South Africa). Lehmann’s predecessor, Mickey Arthur, was sacked by Cricket Australia in 2013 after four consecutive Test losses, and guess who Arthur coaches now? Yup, Pakistan.

Discounting Shaun Marsh’s New Suit

2015-16 W Indies in Aus, , ,

In the old Hans Christian Andersen tale ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’, only a child is prepared to state the obvious and declare the emperor naked. Let me be that child.

The West Indies have had a brand new suit designed and stitched for Shaun Marsh. Once dressed in his finery, Shaun Marsh can continue his masquerade as the ‘talented’ Test cricketer the selectors and certain over-enthusiastic commentators have always claimed he is. The selectors appear to have heaved a big sigh of relief, assuring themselves they weren’t wrong after all, that at long last Marsh has delivered on his promise. So much so, in fact, that it is suggested Joe Burns may be jettisoned for the 2nd Test so that Marsh may be retained when Usman Khajawa returns after injury.

This would be an awful travesty.

Disclaimer: OK, I admit it: I’m a Shaun Marsh skeptic. Always have been. I think he’s the ‘new Shane Watson’; i.e. he has the appearance of a Test cricketer but lacks the temperament and skill to hold a long-term place in Australia’s batting line-up. I also think he tends to achieve Test selection despite lacking the track record to justify it. He’s just. Not. Good. Enough.

I don’t wish to beat up on the woeful West Indies team – too may in the media have already done that and I have nothing to add – so let’s save time and be blunt. They are rubbish, and runs scored against them simply shouldn’t be valued as highly as runs scored against any of the other six decent Test-playing nations. Any rational observer should apply a huge discount to the value of Marsh’s innings of 182 against the West Indies in Hobart. The West Indies’ bowling attack would hardly threaten the local Under-11s, and the pitch – while not as mind-numbingly flat as Perth – contained few gremlins. The West Indies’ only decent fast bowler, Shannon Gabriel, departed injured after over only ten overs. Kemar Roach was appalling. I like Jason Holder a lot but the guy bowls only at medium pace (calling him ‘fast-medium’ is being kind). Jomel Warrican did his best and credit to him for nabbing Steve Smith’s wicket, but he wasn’t threatening thereafter.

Prior to the 1st Test, Marsh’s Test average after 16 matches was 32.57. This number is not some sort of aberration or statistical distortion that somehow masks his true worth – it represents Marsh’s achievements across the not inconsiderable number of 29 Test innings. And it isn’t good enough. After Hobart, Marsh’s average stands at 37.72, still not exceptional but it flatters him nonetheless.

It is no surprise to see Shane Watson today expressing his hope that Marsh’s big innings against West Indies will silence the latter’s critics. Himself a chronic underperformer, Watson just doesn’t get it, and never did. A good Test batsman makes runs under pressure against GOOD opposition teams and does so with some regularity. Watson could not manage it, and Marsh has not, either.

Meanwhile, Joe Burns does not deserve to be axed. He has played only 6 Tests, having been anointed as Chris Rogers’ successor, and while his performances to date have been a little inconsistent, his Test average of 40.36 is perfectly acceptable and the left-right hand combination is worth preserving. The selectors are often criticized for not sticking with the players they choose. If Burns was the right batsman to open with David Warner a week ago, then he still should be, regardless of Shaun Marsh’s performance. He is still only 26 (Marsh is 32), and if the selectors truly wish to nurture younger players for the longer term, Burns is clearly the more sensible bet of the two.

Let’s be clear. Shaun Marsh was only called up when Khawaja succumbed to injury. All other things being equal, no amount of runs against this hopeless West Indies team is enough reason to retain him over either Burns or Khawaja if the latter two are fit. Tough bikkies, to be sure, but any other move would consign the selection policy to the realm of the utterly illogical (where it is already teetering after the Coulter-Nile inclusion).

 

Concerns Over Burns & Khawaja

2015 NZ in Aus, , ,

The Australian selectors have picked Joe Burns and Usman Khawaja for the First Test squad to face New Zealand on 5 November. Shaun Marsh and Cameron Bancroft missed out.

In relative terms, these are sensible selections; i.e. picking Burns and Khawaja makes more sense than picking Marsh and Bancroft. Shaun Marsh has provided ample evidence after 15 Tests that he is simply not up to the job, and at 32 years of age should be cast aside permanently. Bancroft, who will turn 23 next month, is promising but has only played 24 first-class matches. He is looking good but ideally the selectors would like to see more. A good domestic season in 2015-16 would propel him to the front of the queue of those awaiting Test selection.

In absolute terms, however, there is reason to be concerned about the selection of Burns and Khawaja. The latter, in particular, can count himself lucky to be included given the lack of red ball cricket he has had lately.

There’s a ton of pressure on both players.

Burns performed reasonably well in his two Tests against India last summer, especially with scores of 58 and 66 in the Sydney Test. He missed out on the Ashes tour (barely) but was clearly earmarked by the selectors to take Chris Rogers’ place upon the latter’s retirement. Burns posted 493 runs at 44.82 in the 2013-14 Sheffield Shield, and followed that up with 793 runs at 52.86 runs in the 2014-15 Shield competition, thereby earning his Test call-up last summer.

However, Burns’ form since the Sydney Test of January 2015 has been inconsistent. He played 7 games (11 innings) for Middlesex in the 2015 County Championship but posted only 320 runs at 29.09 with three half-centuries  and a top score of 87. He made only 8 for Australia A against India A in a 4-day match in Chennai in July 2015 (but didn’t bat in the 2nd innings as Australia A won by ten wickets), and had an unspectacular 2015 Matador Cup, scoring three half-centuries while averaging only 35.33.

He did make 154 in August for Australia A against India A in a 50-over game in Chennai, and did himself no harm with a century (102) in a (non-first-class) tour match against New Zealand a week ago when playing for the Cricket Australia XI. However, conditions for the latter match at Manuka Oval in Canberra were so conducive to batting that only four wickets out of 20 actually fell (two on each side) because most batsmen retired early to give their teammates a hit.

Having recently turned 26, Burns – who has 60 first-class matches [average 40.93] under his belt – offers the selectors a good mix of youth and experience. But he’s going to have to crank that average up into the mid-40s if he wants to hang on to the Test opener’s spot.

Usman Khawaja, meanwhile, has played so little red ball cricket in recent months it is impossible to know what sort of form he is really in. 

Khawaja, who will turn 29 in December, is at risk of joining that procession of batsmen who have failed to reproduce their good first-class form at the Test level (e.g. Rob Quiney, Alex Doolan, Shaun Marsh etc). Khawaja has played 9 Tests and in his 17 innings made only 377 runs at 25.13 and made more than 50 only twice. He is often lauded for his good technique but just never cut the mustard when playing with the big boys.

In 89 first-class matches he has 5,558 runs at 39.98. It’s not a bad record but if he’s to bat in the Australian Test team’s top order, it needs to be better than that. What’s slightly troubling is that injury sidelined Khawaja for much of the 2014-15 season, so there’s a bit of a hole in his recent track record. He made 531 runs at 53.10 in the 2013-14 Sheffield, but missed all but two games of the following season. He made 523 runs at 74.71 in the 2014 Matador Cup but played only three games in the recent 2015 competition, making 90 runs at an average of 30.00.

Khawaja, UInningsRunsAverage100s50s
First-class
2013-14 Sheffield Shield1455150.0913
2014 County Championship1341331.7613
2014-15 Sheffield Shield35527.5000
2015 Aus A vs India A411137.0000
50-over
2014 Matador Cup752374.7121
2015 Aus A vs India A / SAf A426766.7512
2015 Matador Cup3903001

In CY 2015, Khawaja has played only two first-class matches. In both he represented Australia A against India A in July, making scores of 25, 12, 33 and 41 not out (111 runs at 37.00). He did rather better in the four 50-over games played by Australia A against India A and South Africa A in August, making scores of 73, 100, 18 and 76 (267 runs at 66.75). Like Burns, he made a century (111 not out) in the tour match against NZ in October, but as mentioned above, few of the batsmen on either side were genuinely tested in that game.

To put it another way, in the past year and a half, Khawaja has strode to the wicket in a first-class game on 20 occasions (and 13 of those were for Lancashire). In those 20 innings, he has made 579 runs at 32.16 and reached a century only once. It’s not easy to see why this recent record demands Test selection.

Perhaps the selectors are looking more at Khawaja’s recent 50-over record, which is considerably better. But players who succeed against the white ball do not always translate that success to the Test arena (remember George Bailey?).

Khawaja is not a bad cricketer. At times he has excelled. But his statistics suggest he has been picked on potential rather than performance. It is the second time he has been in this position. He is 29 now – the first time he was given a chance he was only 24. The pressure is on him to deliver this time. One would think he’s unlikely to get a third bite at the cherry.

 

 

Lay Off the Selectors

2015 Ashes, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Let’s be honest, we cricket fans have all had a whinge about the selectors from time to time. In the aftermath of the Ashes loss in England, the knives are out for a lot of people, including Rod Marsh and his team.

I think that’s unjustified. The selectors did a pretty good job on this Ashes tour, and do not deserve much of the criticism they’ve received.

“I’m just racking my brain to try and think of who else we could have picked,” Marsh has said.

He’s right.

There really wasn’t anybody else who genuinely justified selection. There were good reasons to pick each member of the Ashes squad with the exception of Shane Watson and Shaun Marsh. These two players have a long track record of underperformance and inconsistency at Test level. Neither player has the skill or mental aptitude for Test cricket, and both have spent years demonstrating that.

But the truth is it would not have mattered much.

Neither Watson nor Shaun Marsh was responsible for the loss of the Ashes. I’m sure you could point fingers at more than these three, but Steve Smith, Michael Clarke and Adam Voges were primarily responsible for the series loss due to their inability to score runs at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge. Yes, Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood certainly could have bowled a better line and length, but they were always defending low totals. The main problem was the middle order batting.

Generally, selectors pick players who have been making runs and taking wickets. They did that.

The veterans in the squad such as Clarke and Brad Haddin had good track records, and although their runs had been drying up, Clarke made 128 against India as recently as December. Chris Rogers, David Warner and Smith all played well prior to the Ashes. Voges averaged over 100 last season in the Sheffield Shield and has a long and impressive first class career – why wouldn’t you pick him? After the World Cup, you couldn’t go past Mitchell Starc, and you’d pick Mitchell Johnson on the strength of the 2013-14 Ashes series even if the guy hadn’t rolled his arm over since. Josh Hazlewood was very impressive in his early career, and Nathan Lyon only gets better and better.

True, the Mitchell Marsh experiment didn’t work out, but he was worth a shot. Given Watson’s extended run of poor form, it was a well worth giving Mitchell Marsh a chance after Cardiff. He is definitely not a Test No. 6 batsman, but at 23 he has time on his side, and should be sent back to the Sheffield Shield to make some runs. Marsh is not the first young player to be thrown into the cauldron a little bit too early (Steve Smith was woeful when first he played Test cricket), and he has enormous potential.

Moreover, I give the selectors great kudos for swapping Haddin for Peter Nevill after Cardiff, and am pretty sick and tired of ex-players stirring the pot and whingeing that the ‘family first’ policy should have ensured a game for Haddin at Lord’s. Nevill was a better bet than Haddin, and the selectors made a tough call. They deserve more credit for it.

Oh, and the idea that Peter Siddle should have played at Trent Bridge? C’mon…. It wouldn’t have made any difference. The sad, brutal truth is that Sidds is now only a back-up bowler who would probably not have been in the squad at all if James Pattinson and Pat Cummins were fit and had enough recent red ball cricket under their belts. It’s a cruel statement, but fair. Siddle is down on pace and not the force he once was. The selectors know this. They were right to omit him.

Darren Lehmann has said that swapping out Mitchell Marsh for his brother Shaun in the Fourth Test was a selection error, but again, this selection made little difference to the series result. As mentioned above, Shaun Marsh has been nothing but a disappointment at Test level and should never have been in the squad, but ultimately the series was slipping away by the time he was called up and it would not have mattered which Marsh was selected.

So in my view, Watson and Shaun Marsh are the two black marks against the selectors, but they earn one back for the replacement of Haddin with Nevill. Moreover, they shouldn’t be pilloried for picking either Mitchell Marsh or Voges.

And should any of the up-and-comers have been picked? Joe Burns, Cameron Bancroft and Usman Khawaja are having a good tour of India with Australia A this month, and all three stand a chance of achieving (or regaining) a Test place in coming months. But were they battering down the selectors’ door before the Ashes tour? Not really.

Pat Howard, the performance manager of the Australian team, has gone on record blaming himself for (among other things) trying to prepare Ryan Harris for the series, picking a ‘Dad’s Army’ team and having the selectors announce one touring party for both the West Indies and England.

It’s very noble of Howard to accept blame for the loss of the Ashes, but I struggle to see how any of his alleged transgressions were responsible.

As I’ve noted before (see my earlier post ‘Mythbusting’), Harris was always unlikely to be ready to play. Even if he did play, he was 18 months older than in the previous Ashes series and there was no guarantee he would have been anywhere as effective. Suggestions that Australia ‘missed’ Harris are misguided. Australia might have missed the bowler Harris used to be, but he probably would not have been that bowler in the current series anyway.

As for Howard’s reference to ‘Dad’s Army’, I’m not sure what he’s referring to (but mind you, I don’t what his job entails anyway). It was the selectors’ job to pick the side, not Howard’s, and as I’ve opined above, they did a decent job. I’m not sure exactly what Howard is accepting blame for.

Finally, Australia flew straight from the West Indies to England. At no point between the two series was there sufficient time for other Australians to play enough first-class cricket to impress the selectors. So even if the selectors had decided to pick an entirely new squad for the Ashes at the end of the West Indies series, who would they have chosen other than the players they already had?

Howard has said he welcomes any review of his position. Great – perhaps we’ll find out what he actually does and why it matters.

In the meantime, I think the critics should lay off the selectors. They’re doing okay.

Ban(croft) For Your Buck

2015 Aus A in India, ,

With the Australian Test side imploding so dreadfully at Edgbaston, one performance yesterday by an Australian batsman escaped the attention of many.

Yesterday, Cameron Bancroft, the 22-year old Western Australian opener, scored 150 off 267 balls for Australia A against India A in Chennai. Bancroft’s innings was all the more impressive considering it was part of a team score of 9/329 and was made against former Indian Test bowlers such as Varun Aaron and Pragyan Ohja. No other batsman in the Australia A team scored higher than 54, and India A had already been bowled out for 135. This was no batsman’s paradise. Bancroft’s big ton came after scores of 2 and 51 in Australia A’s first tour match last week.

Bancroft’s innings could be timely. Since the beginning of the current Ashes series, Chris ‘Buck’ Rogers has clearly regretted mentioning the likelihood of his retirement at the end of the series as it has created a distraction for him, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen.

Bancroft may have just stormed to the front of the queue of players competing to replace Rogers. He has only played 23 first class matches to date, but was the third highest run scorer in the 2013-14 Sheffield Shield with 896 runs at 47.15 with 3 centuries and a top score of 211. It was this performance that won him selection for the current tour of India by Australia A.

With Adam Voges (who, incidentally, was the Shield’s top scorer in 2014-15 with 1,358 runs at 104.46) struggling to retain his Test place, one would think the selectors will give Shaun Marsh first crack. Personally, I wouldn’t – I think both Marsh brothers are almost as over-rated by the selectors as Shane Watson was, although Mitchell Marsh, at only 23, shows promise if given enough time to develop. Unfortunately, in the current Ashes squad there are no other batting alternatives to Shaun.

Assuming Rogers retires this year and Voges is dropped, a vacancy will open up (possibly two, if Michael Clarke retires, but’s that for another post).

In fairness, Joe Burns is almost certainly the next batsman to be picked. He’s already played two Tests and didn’t do badly (two half centuries in the second of his two Tests in the summer of 2014-15). Burns earned his Test debut against India in Australia last summer batting at No. 6, mostly because the selectors couldn’t squeeze him in anywhere else. But I think it’s fair to say they envision him batting at the top of the order (he opens the batting for Queensland, after all) once Rogers retires. Moreover, Burns, who will be 26 in September, is a little further advanced than Bancroft, with 3,799 first class runs at 41.29 from 59 matches. In the 2014-15 Sheffield Shield, he was the sixth highest run scorer with 793 runs at 52.86 with 2 centuries and a top score of 183.

But nothing is certain. Burns is currently on the Australia A tour of India as well but was out for only 8 in yesterday’s game (in which Bancroft made 150). He did not play in the first match last week. Moreover, he has had a less than stellar season playing for Middlesex this year, where he has made only 320 runs at 29.09, with a top score of 87.

You’re only as good as your last season. Once Buck retires, Burns might need to look over his shoulder for Bancroft.

(So you do get the headline for this post? Bancroft for your Buck; i.e. Buck Rogers? Well, I thought it was almost clever. Wow, there’s no pleasing some people. )