Tag Archives: Khawaja

Square Pegs in Round Holes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What To Do With Khawaja?

2017 Aus in Bangladesh, 2017-18 Ashes in Aus
What should the selectors do with Usman Khawaja?

 

From time to time there are players who seem to tick all the boxes but simply fail to deliver in the Test arena for reasons nobody seems able to put their finger on. Khawaja is certainly one of those.

Given his weakness against spin bowling, the selectors kept him out of the Indian tour early in 2017. It is therefore easy to question why they picked him for Bangladesh but the answer seems simple: after keeping him hanging around in the wings for so long, they felt they had to either pick him to drop him permanently. So they picked him. I understand that, as far as it goes. But it did not go well in Mirpur.

Perhaps Khawaja will be jettisoned for the 2nd Test in Chittagong, perhaps not. But even if he is retained, what will the selectors do for the Ashes? Let’s mull the issues.

First of all, there’s the problem of age. i was surprised to realize that Khawaja will turn 31 in December. Frankly, I thought he was younger, but that’s how long he’s been hanging around since his 2011 Test debut without stamping his mark on the team. Obviously, the older a player becomes, the fewer chances the selectors are likely to give him. And Hilton Cartwright, who averages 52.07 in an albeit brief first-class career of 22 matches, is only 25. If the selectors are going to punt, they’ll pick the younger bloke, won’t they? It’s what they did with Renshaw and Handscomb.

Secondly, Khawaja is a home track specialist. Nearly half (20 out of 42) of his Test Innings have been played outside Australia. In Asia he averages 14.63 and at other away venues his average is 36.36.

In Australia, Khawaja’s average is 63.74 across 22 innings. But let’s dig a little deeper.

Three of Khawaja’s four Test centuries in Australia were scored in the summer of 2015-16, when the pitches served up – especially in Brisbane and Perth – were among the deadest, flattest and most batsman-friendly wickets ever seen in this country.

I watched Khawaja make his highest Test score of 174 in the 1st Test against NZ in Brisbane in November 2015. However, everybody – and I mean EVERYBODY – made big runs in that game (Warner 163 & 126, Burns 71 & 129, Voges 83, Williamson 140 & 59, McCullum 80). I’ve never seen such a flat pitch at the Gabba. The local under-12s would have been making tons.

The 2nd Test in Perth was even worse. The pitch was so flat, it broke Mitchell Johnson’s spirit and helped convince him to retire. Khawaja made 121, but underperformed. Warner made 253, Williamson 166, Taylor 290, Smith 138 and Voges 119. Needless to say, the match was drawn.

Khawaja then went on to make 144 in the Boxing Day Test of the same year against the West Indies. However, against the West Indies’ popgun attack, Burns scored 128 in the same innings, Smith 134 not out, and Voges 106 not out as Australia declared at 551/3 and romped home by 177 runs.

Khawaja’s 140 against NZ in Wellington in Feb 2016 was unquestionably a good knock, but it came after Hazlewood, Siddle and Lyon had rolled the home team for 183 and was overshadowed by Voges’ 239 and supported by Smith’s 71. But we’ll give Uzzy a tick for that one.

Khawaja’s best innings – and really the only time he has set the game up for his team in a tough situation – was in November 2016. Australia had lost the first two Tests to South Africa, including the Hobart disaster in which Australia was bowled out for 85. The selectors dumped Burns, Voges, Ferguson, Mennie and Nevill and brought in Renshaw, Handscomb, and Maddinson while reinstating Wade. Khawaja’s 145 in the first innings was instrumental in posting a total of 383 that was enough to put the Proteas on the defensive. Australia won by 7 wickets. Interestingly, though, Khawaja succumbed for a second-ball duck in the second innings, trapped in front by a left arm Chinaman making his Test debut (Tabraiz Shamsi).

Khawaja made 97 against Pakistan in Melbourne in December 2016, but again, he was overshadowed by Warner (144) and Smith (165 not out) and Azhar Ali (205 not out).

Unfortunately, his track record strongly suggests Khawaja is the sort of Test batsman who performs only when there are plenty of runs in the wicket or if the bowling attack is weak or if he is batting with little pressure after the bowlers have blown away the opposition for a low score. He has generally failed when under pressure or when facing good bowlers.

Surely the mark of a Test batsman is the ability to occasionally dig deep and either set up a match or rescue one for the team when the chips are down. In the current team, only Smith and Warner have proven beyond doubt their capacity to do this on any sort of regular basis. Renshaw’s 68 in the first innings in Pune in Feb 2017 was crucial is setting up that victory over India, and Handscomb’s 72 not out in Ranchi the following month was responsible for the team salvaging an important draw. These performances (and their youth) are why the selectors will persevere with these players, although more is obviously required from both.

With Khawaja’s 31st birthday around the corner, it is getting increasingly difficult to see what the selectors hope to gain by giving him more opportunities when they could roll the dice on promising players five years his junior. I don’t know if he’ll be retained for the Ashes, but if he is, he should consider himself very fortunate.

Some Spine in the Middle Order

2017 Aus in India, , , , , , , ,

Mitchell Marsh has gone home injured from India, hounded by cruel but accurate headlines labelling him Australia’s worst ever No. 6. It’s not his fault – it’s the selectors who persist in filling the No. 6 slot with a so-called ‘all-rounder’ who bats a bit and bowls a bit but does neither well enough to help win a Test match for his team.

And now they’ve done it again.

Marcus Stoinis?

Really?

Why would you pick this guy for the Test team on the back of one (admittedly phenomenal) ODI innings against New Zealand? Like Hilton Cartwright and Moises Henriques before him, Stoinis bowls lollipop medium-pacers which India’s batsmen will chew up and spit out on their low, slow wickets. And he’s not a good enough batsman to play at No. 6 in the Test team. He simply isn’t (and neither was Mitchell Marsh). So why fly him to India? It makes no sense.

And if they don’t play Stoinis in the 3rd Test, will they play Usman Khawaja? A sensible short-term solution, perhaps, but Uzzy is not a No. 6 batsman. He’s an opener.

Oh, and by the way, Glenn Maxwell certainly isn’t the answer, either.  Substitute ‘off-spinners that don’t spin’ for ‘lollipop medium pacers’ in the paragraph above, and all the same arguments apply. Maxwell should not even be in the Test squad. He hasn’t earned it. He’s not good enough.

The Australian selectors seem to have forgotten how much better the team fared when it had a proper batsman at No. 6. Come back, Mike Hussey, we miss you. The obvious solution is to find a proper middle-order batsman.  Australia has done well in India with two decent seamers and two decent spinners. It doesn’t need a third seamer, or a third spinner. Even with Starc flying home, you could play Jackson Bird or if you must have more pace, fly Pat Cummins out to India. I don’t think it makes any difference.  Honestly, I think Bird will do fine. He lacks Starc’s threatening pace but he’s a lot more accurate.

When desperate after the series loss to South Africa, the selectors resorted to picking a couple of young batsmen who had (shock, horror,gasp) a good if somewhat short track record in the Sheffield Shield. Remember the Sheffield Shield? So far, Matt Renshaw and Peter Handscomb have done pretty well.  Both look likely to improve.

Why not stick with that approach? Australia needs a decent No. 6 batsman. There are two obvious candidates.

One is Kurtis Patterson, who bats at No. 4 for NSW. He will be 24 in May. He has played 39 first-class matches and has an average of 42.83 with 5 centuries. So far this season, he’s scored 621 runs at 47.77, with one ton and six half-centuries.

The other is Jake Lehmann, who bats at No. 5 for South Australia. The 24-year old Lehmann has played 25 first-class matches and has an average of 46.41 with 5 centuries.  So far this season, he’s made 646 runs at 49.69.

I reckon either Patterson or Jake Lehmann would be worthwhile selections. They both resemble Renshaw and Handscomb: young, and with a decent track record. The selectors are on to a good strategy. They should stick with it and abandon this catastrophic policy of picking a mediocre player to bat at No. 6.

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.