Tag Archives: Marsh

Concerns Over Burns & Khawaja

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

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.