Tag Archives: Johnson

‘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.

Why Cummins, Not Pattinson?

2015 Ashes, , , , , , , , ,

One minute Australia has plenty of fast bowling options, the next it doesn’t.

I haven’t seen many pundits express surprise at the addition of Pat Cummins to the Ashes squad after Ryan Harris’ retirement, but I for one am pretty gobsmacked. It’s not that I have anything against Cummins (I do not) but it’s just…….how do you know how he’ll perform if he gets a game?

I mean, this is a guy who has played one famous Test and no more than six first-class matches in his entire career. After his man-of-the-match Test debut in South Africa three and half years ago, he has spent most of his time injured. He has scraped together 12 ODI appearances (19 wickets at 30.36) and 14 T20s (19 wickets at 19.47), none of which sheds any light on his likely ability in Test cricket.

The guy may be the best thing since sliced bread, but how does one make that determination? I hope the selectors know something we don’t.

I do wonder why the selectors didn’t opt for James Pattinson, who has also spent most of his time injured but has actually played 13 Tests and has 51 wickets at 27.07. Pattinson is currently fit once more, and will front up for Australia A in its tour of India, which commences on Wednesday, 15 July. He missed the 2014-15 Shield season through injury so perhaps the selectors want to see him play some red ball cricket, but all of that (i.e. the recent lack of cricket) is even more true for Cummins than for Pattinson.

Jackson Bird appears to have dropped off the radar after his promising Test debut against Sri Lanka in 2012 was also followed by a prolonged injury layoff. He took 18 wickets at 33.27 in 7 matches during the 2014-15 Sheffield Shield competition, and is currently playing for Hampshire where he has taken 14 wickets in four first class games this season. Not completely shabby, but not enough to demand Test selection, one would think.

The selectors could also have considered Tasmania’s Andrew Fekete (57 wickets at 26.94 in 16 first-class games) but Fekete recently turned 30 so perhaps his age put them off. His 37 wickets in the 2014-15 Shield competition was, however, enough to earn him a berth on the same Australia A tour of India that Pattinson is about to embark on. Also on the Australia A tour of India is Sean Abbott, who is still only 23. He has 55 first-class wickets at 31.16 and must be in the frame, although not at the top of the list.

Nathan Coulter-Nile has never really managed to knock the selectors’ socks off (I think he bowls far too short too often). Other leading Sheffield Shield wicket-takers Nathan Rimmington, Doug Bollinger and Mick Hogan are all too old (32, almost 34 and 34 respectively). Ben Hilfenhaus is 32 and not the man he was. Besides, he has just injured his hip after taking 7 wickets in three county games for Nottinghamshire, and is returning to Australia.

Personally I would love to see James Faulkner in the Test team. I think he is precisely the feisty character the team needs AND he is in England currently playing for Lancashire. Moreover, he’s in form, having taken 18 wickets in his past four county games. Only a week ago he took 5-39 and made 68 against Essex. But assuming the selectors drop Watson for Mitchell Marsh, it will presumably be difficult to find room for a second all-rounder.

There are other names one could ponder but none of them are in danger of imminent selection.

So if Mitchell Starc doesn’t play in the Second Test, or if he or Mitchell Johnson breaks down during the Ashes, it will be Peter Siddle or Cummins.

Siddle may do well, but it’s hard to say. I haven’t got a clue. He lacks the pace of Johnson and Starc but is more accurate. He took 17 wickets during the last Ashes series in England two years ago, but eight of those came in the First Test at Trent Bridge. The Aussie coaches say he has regained some of the pace he lost; if that is really true, Siddle may be just the ticket.

If not, then it’s Cummins.

And then what happens?

Mythbusting

2015 Ashes, , , , ,

Ashes status: England 1, Australia nil.

Let’s look at some of the myths doing the rounds after Australia’s loss in Cardiff:

Myth #1: Australia is missing Ryan Harris.

No, I don’t think so. Harris’ presence would not have helped much in Cardiff. I loved the Rhino as much as any cricket fan but when folks say Australia is missing him, what they’re really saying is that they’re missing the Harris of 2013-14. Harris wouldn’t have cut it. He was coming off six months of rehab with no cricket under his belt, and – more importantly – was eighteen months older. One only needs to look at the impact those eighteen months have had on Brad Haddin. No, Harris was lucky to have dodged it all. I’d rather remember him the way he was.

Myth #2: The Aussie quicks were nobbled by the slow pitch

The Cardiff curator may have Mitch-proofed the wicket but the greater problem was that Johnson and Starc did not bowl accurately. England’s bowlers demonstrated that line and length was both possible and effective. Pitches are slow everywhere – India, the UAE, the West Indies and England – but good bowling discipline is still good bowling discipline.

Myth #3: Aussie batsmen should play their natural game. 

No, no, and no. If Michael Clarke says this one more time, I’ll scream. Raised on hard bouncy wickets on which the ball comes on to the bat, Aussie batsmen tend to adopt an attacking approach which simply doesn’t work on slow pitches. The reason they lose so heavily overseas is precisely because they continue to play the same way when they should alter their approach, build an innings, bat with patience, occupy the crease, and keep the opposition in the field. So, no, they should play anything BUT their natural game. Learning to adjust to all conditions is surely what makes a good international cricketer. I sometimes wonder if there some sort of misplaced machismo at work here – the likes of Clarke and Lehmann usually smile and wink and promise us the Australians will play their ‘natural game’ as if there was some unspoken shame in batting conservatively. Is it not manly to occupy the crease and grind out runs? I thought winning was the objective.

Myth #4: Watson’s inclusion in the side adds ‘balance’.

Baloney – I’ve included this as a myth but nobody other than the Australian selectors really believes it. It hasn’t been true for at least three years. What you have is a washed-up batsman who can never be relied upon when the pressure is on, and a pedestrian medium-pacer who looks so unlikely to take wickets that his skipper barely gives him a bowl. Of course he must be dropped. This is now consensus so there seems little point in dwelling any further on it here.

Myth #5: Peter Nevill is too inexperienced to risk

Well, that’s just silly. What’s he doing in the touring party then? Let’s face it, Haddin’s form is grim. I don’t condemn him for the dropped catch off Root in Cardiff – after all, he’s taken plenty of blinders in recent times – but his lack of runs is alarming. Since the end of the 2013-14 Ashes series, Haddin has made 259 runs at 15.24 with a top score of 55 and just the one half-century. Nevill, on the other hand, made 764 runs in fourteen innings at 76.40 in the 2014-15 Sheffield Shield competition, with two centuries and three 50s. The year before he made 461 runs at 51.22 with one ton and two half-centuries. The guy can clearly play, is in better form than Haddin and eight years younger. On balance, Nevill should clearly replace Haddin. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to see the selectors biting this particular bullet. One suspects they will allow Haddin to stagger on out of loyalty or because he ‘deserves’ to ‘go out on his own terms’ or some such malarkey.