Tag Archives: Hazlewood

Starc ‘second to none’?

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, , ,

In an article on Cricket Australia’s website today, team management appears anxious to justify selecting Mitchell Starc after a pretty indifferent performance with the ball in the World Test Championship.

Coach Andrew McDonald concedes that Starc tends to leak runs in comparison to the other Australian seamers, but claims this is acceptable because he takes lots of wickets: “His wicket-taking ability is second-to-none. We’ve got to weigh all that up when we make decisions.”

This argument seems a bit dubious to me. Second to none? Yes, he takes some wickets, but is it enough to compensate for the runs he gives away? It doesn’t look like it.

I took a look at Starc’s returns in seamer-friendly conditions since 2019 (i.e. excluding Australia’s three tours to the subcontinent [Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2022, India in 2023] where spinners took most of the wickets). This analysis takes in

  • the 2019 Ashes in England,
  • the 2019-20 home summer against Pakistan then New Zealand,
  • the 2020 home series against India,
  • the 2021-22 home Ashes series and
  • the 2022-23 home summer against West Indies and South Africa.

Across these five series, Starc took an average of 2.05 wickets per innings versus 2.41 for Cummins, 2.15 for Hazlewood and 2.33 for Boland. In doing so, he conceded 3.11 runs per over, more than any other Australian bowler (even Cameron Green).

** Data includes returns for the 2019 Ashes, 2019-20 home summer, 2020 home series vs India, 2021-22 home Ashes and the 2022-23 home summer. ^Neser’s data is taken from his aggregate wicket tally in the 2022-23 Sheffield Shield and his 2023 season in England with Glamorgan.

McDonald’s assertion that Starc’s wicket-taking ability is second to none simply isn’t supported by the data. Perhaps he’s speaking of a different data set. If Starc took more wickets than the other seamers, his poor economy rate would be fine. But he doesn’t.

It seems likely England’s batters will come hard at Australia’s seamers. If Australia wants to win one or both of the first two Ashes Tests, it will need extreme accuracy from its seamers to put the England batters under pressure and force mistakes from them. Cummins, Hazlewood and Boland are likely to provide that pressure. If Starc has one of his off days and can’t control his line and length, he could give away a huge number of runs and potentially put Australia in a losing position. Personally, I would hold Starc back until at least the Third Test and allow Australia’s best seamers to do the job in the first two.

Time to Let Starc Go

2021-22 Ashes, , , , ,

Cricket Australia has awarded Mitchell Starc a CA contract for 2021. This decision appears to reflect an assumption that Starc should remain the spearhead of the bowling attack.

If so, there is little persuasive evidence to support this notion.

Don’t get me wrong, in the first five overs of a pink ball Test or ODI, Starc is the man you want. His ability to swing the new ball back into the right hander is renowned, but once the shine goes off the ball – be it pink, white or red – Starc simply doesn’t threaten batsmen like he used to. A team’s strike bowler needs to perform throughout an entire innings, not just in the first half-dozen overs.

Starc has never had many strings to his bow. If he is on song, he will grab a wicket or two in the first few overs, but if he isn’t, he will drop too short or spray the ball wide, giving batsmen plenty of opportunity to score. This continues to happen far more often than it should. Batsmen both at home and abroad have figured him out, and he hasn’t adjusted. If they can see off his first few overs, they can pick him off and they know it.

With international opportunities curtailed by Covid-19, the recent 2020-21 Sheffield Shield season gave all players an opportunity to strut their stuff in the domestic competition. Starc ended up with only 16 Shield wickets in 7 matches at an ugly average of 47.31. It was hardly inspiring stuff. No fewer than eighteen bowlers took more wickets than Starc in the competition, including the 36-year old Peter Siddle (18 wickets at 28.16 in 6 matches) and 35-year old Trent Copeland (20 wickets at 27.70 in 8 matches). Excluding spinners Nathan Lyon (42 wickets at 25.97 in 9 matches) and Mitch Swepson (32 wickets at 23.40 in only FIVE matches), seamers such as Jackson Bird (35 wickets at 22.17 in 8 matches) and Scott Boland (30 wickets at 24.00 in 8 matches) showed how lacklustre Starc’s returns were.

Bird and Boland are now too old to be considered for selection as Test bowlers, but a number of the younger quicks, especially Brendan Doggett (22 wickets at 26.81 in 6 matches), Sean Abbott (21 wickets at 29.14 in 8 matches) and Queensland’s most exciting prospect, 22-year old Xavier Bartlett (19 wickets at 31.31 in 6 matches) left Starc in the dust. Add to this group the impressive Jhye Richardson, who played two Tests before a shoulder injury forced him to miss most of the past two years (including the entire 2020-21 Shield season).

In the four Tests against India in 2020-21, Starc’s 11 wickets left him well behind Pat Cummins (21 wickets) and Josh Hazlewood (17 wickets). After several years of Cummins coming on as first change, it is now beyond doubt he should open the bowling with Hazlewood.

Starc’s recent white ball performances are no more encouraging. In the year to mid-2019, he played 10 ODIs and took 27 wickets at 18.59. Since January 2020, he has played 11 ODIs and taken 12 wickets at 54.25. The wind has gone out of his sails.

Australia has plenty of quick bowlers. They don’t need to retain Starc as the opening bowler anymore, and the numbers suggest they should not. Cummins and Hazlewood could be better supported by Abbott (whose form with both bat and ball in the 2020-21 season makes him increasingly difficult to omit). But if Abbott, who is 29, is deemed too old, there are plenty of other options. The 24-year old Jhye Richardson is probably the best bet now that his shoulder is (apparently) mended, but the 27-year old Doggett is not a bad option, either. It’s a bit early for Bartlett.

Selectors have often erred by retaining once-great players for too long after their best form is well and truly behind them. Starc has been playing Test cricket for a decade and deserves plenty of credit for his 255 Test wickets at 27.57, but he’s not that calibre of bowler anymore and by pretending he is, the selectors are not fielding their best possible team.

Cummins Needs Runs

2020-21 India in Aus, , ,

The only way Australia wins Test matches at present is if the bowlers do the work. With the batsmen underperforming as a group, it takes Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon to do the heavy lifting, as they did in the first Test against India in Adelaide. Cummins is now the #1-ranked Test bowler in the world, with Hazlewood and Starc coming at #5 and #7, respectively.

But something else is happening which few have said much about: the tail is getting longer because Cummins isn’t making runs. And it’s becoming a pretty serious problem, especially as the top order continues to flounder. Conventional wisdom suggests that when a bowler is taking wickets, the confidence he/she gets feeds through to runs with the bat. That isn’t happening with Cummins. In fact, he is looking more and more uncertain and tentative at the crease.

Until five years ago, the batting contribution of Australia’s bowlers was the envy of other teams, with Ryan Harris averaging 21.53 with the bat and Mitchell Johnson 22.20. Mitchell Starc chimed in with 26.92 in his first 25 Tests.

In his first eighteen Tests, Cummins performed solidly with the willow at No. 8, making 528 runs at 21.12. The highlight came in the second innings of the Third Test against India in Melbourne in December 2018, when he top-scored with 63 out of a team total of 261 (unsuccessfully chasing 399 to win).

HOWEVER, things have changed. In his most recent 14 Tests, Cummins has made a measly 150 runs from eighteen innings at an average of 9.38 and a highest score of 26. From those eighteen starts, he has reached double figures only five times. He averaged 10.14 during the 2019 Ashes series and 9.60 in the 2019-2020 series against Pakistan and New Zealand.

For a No. 8 Test batsman, an average of under 10 is alarming, and it’s a headache for the team. Cummins’ opposite number in the Indian team, Ravi Ashwin, for example, averages 26 at No. 8. Dan Vettori used to average over 39. Shaun Pollock and Kapil Dev both averaged over 30 at No. 8. Even Shane Warne managed over 18.

Meanwhile, at No. 9, Mitchell Starc’s career batting average has dropped a little since the middle of the decade, but still stands at 22.15. In his last ten Test appearances, in fact, Starc has scored 200 runs at 28.57. Even Nathan Lyon has been outscoring Cummins. Over his past dozen Tests, Lyon has scored 141 runs at 14.10. In other words, Lyon is currently generating a batting average roughly fifty percent higher than that of Cummins while batting at No. 10.

So am I suggesting Cummins’ place in the team is under threat? Of course not. Given the way he’s bowling, he could bat at No. 11 and still keep his place. But on current form, he should drop to No. 9 and let Starc take the No. 8 slot.

It would be handy to know what Justin Langer & Co. intend to do to help Cummins regain his form with the bat. While they’re at it, perhaps they could answer two of the most baffling questions of the decade: what exactly do Australia’s batting coaches do, and why isn’t it feeding through to results?

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.

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.

‘Gut Feeling’ Makes Me Queasy

2015-16 W Indies in Aus, , , , , , , , , , , ,

So Nathan Coulter-Nile has been included in the Test squad for the 1st Test against West Indies in Hobart on a ‘gut feeling’ by selectors.

Oh dear. And the selectors had been doing so well. Despite the loss of the Ashes in 2015, I think the selectors did a pretty good job on that tour (see our earlier post ‘Lay Off the Selectors’). Time to give them a kicking.

Although we’re talking about the selection of 12th and 13th men who may not play in the First Test in Hobart, this selection is potentially more important than it seems. Mitchell Johnson is gone. Mitchell Starc is out injured for a while. Peter Siddle has a sore back. Josh Hazlewood has shouldered a heavy workload recently. James Pattinson is returning from injury and is hardly reliable when it comes to fitness. It is far from inconceivable that Coulter-Nile and even Scott Boland, the standby bowler or ’13th man’, could be playing in the Test XI before the end of the West Indies series.

The selectors have admitted they picked Coulter-Nile due to his ability to bowl fast. In other words, he fitted into their ‘velocity philosophy’. Hmm.

Yes, Coulter-Nile is relatively quick. But he also bowls far too short most of the time and does not (at least in my impression) move the ball appreciably off the seam. His first-class record is okay but hardly earth-shattering (see table below).

Victorian coach and former England bowling coach David Saker has labelled Coulter-Nile’s selection ‘ridiculous’ and accuses the selectors of looking only for pace at the expense of bowlers who can ‘put the ball in the right areas’. Saker is not a member of the Australian establishment and can afford to lob a few grenades, and it’s not unusual for state coaches to complain when their own players are overlooked for higher honours. But I think Saker is largely correct.

Chairman of selectors Rod Marsh said of Coulter-Nile “we’ve been very pleased with the way he’s gone when he has played” and “we think he is ready to compete at Test level if required.”

Really, Rod? What makes you think that? Coulter-Nile’s first-class career has been adequate for a Sheffield Shield player, but he has not been among the leading wicket-takers in the domestic competition in recent years. He’s taken 22 wickets in 13 ODIs at an average of 26.50, which is okay but not exactly stellar. He’s never taken a 5-wicket haul in his ODI career, for example. And, as Marsh readily concedes, he has not even played a red ball game since last season due to injury. Coulter-Nile was picked for Australia A’s tour of India in July-August 2015 but did not even play in either of the team’s two first-class games against India A! If he was on the cusp on Test selection, why was he selected only for the triangular one-day series against India A and South Africa A?

First-class careers
AgeMatWktsAveEconSR
Behrendorff, J25228625.223.1548
Bird, J294117024.443.0647.9
Boland, S26267130.142.8563.3
Bollinger, D3410736727.193.1651.6
Coulter-Nile, N283511928.973.1155.7
Faulkner, J255517923.972.9249.2
Fekete, A30217428.953.1754.6
Mennie, J273210929.892.9361.1

The usual refrain we hear at this point is ‘well, who else could they have picked?’ Well, there’s a bit of a list, actually, starting most conspicuously with Jackson Bird.

Only a few days ago,  Cricket Australia’s own website tipped Bird as a likely member of the Test squad to face the West Indies. It’s harsh that he has been left out. Is it his age? Doubtful. He’ll turn 29 next week so he’s hardly over the hill. Bird struggled with injury after taking 11 wickets against Sri Lanka in his first two Tests in 2012-13. However, he has since bounced back with 18 wickets in seven matches in the 2014-15 Sheffield Shield and an additional 18 wickets already in four games in the 2015-16 competition, including 5/69 last week against South Australia. I think Bird is entitled to feel a little hard done by. Perhaps the selectors feel Bird is a little too similar in style to Hazlewood; i.e. not the fastest bowler but one who hits the deck and tries to extract sideways movement. But, as Saker says, it’s not all about raw pace. At least it shouldn’t be, especially now that traditionally hard and fast pitches like the Gabba and the WACA have been unrecognizable this season for their dullness.

Scott Boland, on the other hand, is a good choice for backup bowler. He took a total of 43 wickets in the last two Sheffield Shield season and has already bagged 12 in three matches so far in the 2015-16 season including an eye-catching 7/31 against Western Australia last week. And he’s in that ‘sweet spot’ in terms of age;  old enough for his body to have matured enough to tolerate the stresses of fast bowling but young enough to play for a few years yet.

Sheffield Shield wickets
2013-142014-152015-16*SUM
Behrendorff, J3114954
Bird, J-181836
Boland, S18251255
Bollinger, D25241261
Coulter-Nile, N1417-31
Faulkner, J45918
Fekete, A20371269
Mennie, J19171753
No. of Shield games
Behrendorff, J64212
Bird, J-7411
Boland, S88319
Bollinger, D78318
Coulter-Nile, N46-10
Faulkner, J2338
Fekete, A610319
Mennie, J79420

Surely WA’s Jason Behrendorff was on the cusp of selection as well, but has succumbed to injury and will be out for at least a month. Shame. Doug Bollinger is in good form but will probably be a last choice selection due to his age. Joe Mennie? He’s going to have to up the ante. Billy Stanlake? Too soon.

I’ve always believed James Faulkner should be a permanent member of the Test team but presumably the selectors feel he is too similar to Mitchell Marsh (the two have identical first-class batting averages). This is especially true now that they may promote Peter Nevill to No. 6 and drop Mitchell Marsh down the batting order to No. 7, where he will slot into the sort of position that Faulkner would otherwise occupy.

So for my money, Bird should have been picked first, with Boland as back-up bowler. State players are told to produce results if they want to be picked for the Test team. It’s not supposed to be about ‘gut feeling’. Bird traversed a long road to return from injury, and has been taking wickets. Instead, he is overlooked for a guy who hasn’t played for months, doesn’t move the ball and wasn’t even deemed good enough to play for Australia A in their recent red ball games in India.

Bird is entitled to be peeved.

 

 

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.