Tag Archives: Head

Anyone But Him

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, , , ,

Oh, for Pete’s sake. After Ricky Ponting, now Greg Chappell has joined the chorus of ‘experts’ backing David Warner despite the absence of any evidence to suggest he is capable of performing as Australia’s Test opener.

“I think with a champion – and I consider David a champion – you give a champion one game too many rather than one game too few,” Chappell is reported to have said.

He’s had one game too many already, Greg. More than one.

It’s not enough to say ‘we think he’ll come good’ (no he won’t).

It’s facile to say ‘he performs well when his back’s against the wall’ (no, he doesn’t).

It’s meaningless to say ‘he’s batting well in the nets’ (Tests aren’t played in the nets).

It’s true there is no like-for-like replacement for Warner. It’s also true that whoever is chosen to open the batting may indeed fail, whether it’s Marsh, Green, Head, Harris or Renshaw. I don’t care. Pick one of them. I don’t care which one. With Warner barely averaging 23 on a very good day if the pitch is flat, and failing to last a single over against Broad when there is any kind of lateral movement, it doesn’t matter who you pick. Any of the candidates has at least as good as chance as Warner and is likely as not to do better. Anyone but Warner.

If anyone is interested, a spot poll in the Fairfax press today produced the following results from readers:

Head-Less is Best

2021 Aus in S Africa, , ,

The Australian selectors have included Travis Head in the 19-man squad to tour South Africa. This makes no sense.

Twice in the past two years, Head was dropped from the Test team in the middle of a big series because he wasn’t performing. He was left out after the fourth of five Ashes Tests in England in 2019 after making 191 runs at 27.29, then excluded again after the first two Tests against in India after making 7, 38 and 17. In both cases, he was judged by the selectors to be performing unacceptably. They were right in their assessments.

The selectors axed Matthew Wade after he failed to make good after repeated opportunities. Fair enough. This is Test cricket, not tiddlywinks, and the middle order is horribly brittle.

So what makes Head different from Wade? The fact that he is younger and ‘might’ improve? He’s already had 19 Tests to make a case, and his performances are getting worse, not better. In his last 11 Tests, Head is averaging only 30.63, so his nominal Test average of 39.75 is flattering him.

Head just isn’t good enough to bat at No. 5 for Australia and doesn’t deserve a recall.

One can’t blame the selectors for giving players a chance and then cutting them if they fail. They did it with Joe Burns and Matt Wade, and they should do it with Head. They have kept Moises Henriques waiting in the wings for ages – they might as well give him a chance or release him to go back and play for NSW. Henriques turns 34 on 1 February so he’s not a long-term option, but who knows – maybe he’ll grab the late-career opportunity as Tim Paine has and help win the Ashes.

As noted in past posts, I think Alex Carey should play as a specialist batter at No. 6 (pushing Cameron Green up to No. 5) until such time as Paine retires. At least Carey is now in the Test squad.

But picking Travis Head again is simply illogical.

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.

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’. 

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.

Got That Right

2017-18 Ashes in Aus, , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the eyes of cricket fans, the selectors can doing very little right. The howling noise over the selection of Tim Paine and Shaun Marsh for the Ashes was deafening.

Now, with Australia 2-0 up in the series, it seems fitting to give the selectors a pat on the back not only for the selection of Paine and Marsh, who have played well, but for the contenders they did not pick.

Many felt Matthew Renshaw was hard done by when discarded in favour of Cameron Bancroft, but the truth is it was an excellent call by the selectors. In the first five games of the Sheffield Shield this season, Renshaw has scored 111 runs in 10 innings at an average of 12.33 and with a top score of 19. At 21, he is young enough to work on his game and regain his Test spot at some point, but he has a lot of work to do.

None of the prospective wicketkeeper candidates have shown they should have been picked over Paine. Peter Nevill has scored 221 runs at 31.57 in 8 innings, with a single half-century. Matthew Wade’s form with the bat has not improved appreciably; he has 154 runs at 22.00 in this year’s Shield, with only one half-century (72 not out in Round Five). Excluding that innings, he has not passed 30.  Alex Carey scored his maiden first-class ton (139) in Round Five, and has 301 runs at 43.00 so far for the season. Promising, but more evidence is required. Jimmy Pierson scored an 82 not out in Round Five but has scored only 156 runs at 22.29 in 8 innings.

First, top order contenders: Hilton Cartwright was considered for the Ashes but has done poorly in the Shield; he has scored 216 runs at 21.60 this Shield season, suggesting the decision to omit him from the Test squad was the correct one. Nic Maddinson was not seriously in contention for the Ashes, and a good thing, too, with only 177 runs at 17.70 so far this season. Why his name gets mentioned for a Test recall is a mystery to me.

Middle order contenders Kurtis Patterson (260 runs at 28.89) and Jake Lehmann (336 runs at 37.33) have not demonstrated that they should have been selected over Shaun Marsh. Lehmann in particular has seen his scores fall away after his scores of 103 and 93 in Round Two nearly got him a Baggy Green. Since then, his scores have been 13, 24, 1, 17, 43 and 26. Good call, selectors.  Marcus Stoinis has only batted five times this season and has only 103 runs at 20.60. Again, well done, selectors.

Travis Head is not far away, with Shield scores of 67, 80, 132 and 65 so far this season. He has scored 421 runs at 42.10 and must remain in contention but is probably slightly behind Glenn Maxwell in the race for a Test spot in the middle order (see ‘Zombies Live!’).

All in all, the selectors deserve some credit as much for the players they didn’t pick as for those they did. But they probably won’t get it.