Tag Archives: Nevill

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.

 

 

 

Keepers’ Curse

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

Since Brad Haddin was dropped from the Test team, the selectors have been cursed when picking a replacement for him. Each time they pick a guy, his form tanks.

Peter Nevill of NSW seemed like the right guy. When Brad Haddin was dropped, Nevill was arguably the best wicketkeeper in the country, and averaged over 40 with the bat in first-class cricket. It made perfect sense to pick him , and I’ve always thought Rod Marsh did the right thing by sacking Haddin when he did (many others disagreed).

But Nevill was a huge disappointment. It made just as much sense to drop him after 17 Tests in which he averaged only 22.28 with the bat and scored over 50 only three times in 23 innings. It was nowhere near adequate.

To make matters worse, Nevill returned to NSW and finished the 2016-17 Sheffield Shield season with 625 runs at 56.81, including three centuries and a top score of 179 not out. The selectors have a right to be peeved. Why couldn’t he play like that during his time in the Test team?

Matthew Wade then seemed like the right guy. He had averaged a respectable 34.61 in his first 12 Tests in 2012 and 2013, scoring two centuries and three half-centuries. Australia needed more runs from the  ‘keeper at No. 7, so they dropped Nevill and went back to Wade. Once again, a fair call under the circumstances.

In his 9 Tests since then,  however, Wade has displayed an alarming deterioration in form with the bat. He has made 255 runs at 21.25, passing 50 only once in 15 innings. In seven of those 15 innings, he has failed to reached double figures. Wade is not the man he was, and it’s REALLY hurting the team.

Pity the selectors. What are they supposed to do now? Wade is a dead weight at No. 7, and with England’s ‘keeper-batsman Johnny Bairstow now at No. 13 on the ICC Test batting rankings, Australia is at a huge disadvantage.

As Allan Border suggests, they could ask Handscomb to take the gloves, which would give the selectors a chance to add another batsman, which is desperately needed. Trouble is, Handscomb doesn’t really want to be the Test ‘keeper and Steven Smith doesn’t seem overly keen, either. But Australia needs runs badly.

The other option is to once again use the opening two or three rounds of the Sheffield Shield in October-November as an audition. If Nevill does well and Wade does not, there would be strong case for reinstating the NSW gloveman.

If Wade gets a score either in Chittagong or in the early Shield rounds, he’ll probably save his spot, but only because there are so few alternatives.

Tasmania’s Tim Paine was once expected to be a shoo-in to replace Haddin, playing four Tests and 26 ODIs. But Paine suffered a catastrophic finger injury which cost him two years out of the game. When he came back, he was never the same player, and at nearly 33 years of age, is unlikely to be selected.

South Australia’s Alex Carey is yet to impress.

Queensland’s Jimmy Pierson has played well for the Brisbane Heat in the Big Bash but he has played only five first-class games because he was frozen out by the presence of Chris Hartley, who despite good form was never in contention for Test selection due to his age. With Hartley now retired, it’s too late for him but also too early for Pierson.

Still only 25, WA’s Sam Whiteman debuted at 20 years of age and has had a relatively lengthy first-class career (50 games) in which he has averaged a useful 34.64 with three centuries and 15 half-centuries. Unfortunately, he had a poor year in 2016-17, in which he played only 5 Shield games and averaged 25.55.

The Doughnut

2016-17 S Africa in Aus,

Mitchell Marsh and Peter Nevill are responsible for the Australian Test team’s doughnut: together they have cooked up a big hole in the middle of the batting order.

Neither batsman is performing to an acceptable standard. This is becoming an increasingly serious problem that neither the selectors nor the media seem to be talking enough about.

This year, we have two good teams coming to play: South Africa and Pakistan. Facing New Zealand (a good team) and the West Indies (um, not such a good team) last summer, Australia was able to stagger through carrying Marsh and Nevill, but against better teams it is unlikely to be so easy.

For a start, it’s time to acknowledge that the attempt to install Mitchell Marsh as Australia’s Test all-rounder has failed.

When he made his Test debut two years at the age of 23, Marsh was considered a batting all-rounder. He has now played 18 Tests, but in 29 Test innings has averaged only 24.00 and scored over 50 only twice. For a guy batting at No. 6, this is woeful. More to the point, when he bats he just doesn’t look like getting runs.

I am all for giving promising young players a chance to develop, but this experiment is not working. Marsh is more of a bash-&-crash merchant; he lacks the technique for Test cricket, and like his predecessor Shane Watson is better suited for the short form of the game (Marsh averages 37.45 in ODIs and 29.21 in Twenty20 cricket).

Marsh has, however, proven more useful with the ball than the selectors probably expected. His 27 wickets in 18 Tests at 36.33 is far from earth-shattering but there’s no denying he has a knack for picking up the odd useful wicket when coming on as first or second change. But his skills with the ball would only be pertinent if he batted at No. 8 and was considered a bowling all-rounder. If he remains in the Test team at all, that’s where he should play.

Marsh’s poor form with bat is even more worrying now that Peter Nevill’s form with the bat has deteriorated beyond recognition. When he made his Test debut, Nevill was averaging over 40 in first-class cricket and looked like the perfect replacement for Brad Haddin. Since then, he has averaged a measly 20.88 in 19 Test innings. Frankly, he looks utterly lost when facing Test-quality bowling attacks.

As Nevill is the better ‘keeper, it seems unlikely the Test selectors will revert to Matthew Wade again anytime soon, but it’s worth remembering that Wade averaged 34.61 with the bat in his 12 Tests. If Nevill can’t make some runs this summer, one wonders when the selectors will consider comprising on wicketkeeping prowess in order to get a few more runs on the board. And no single young ‘keeper-batsman is currently bashing down their door, although if players like 24-year old Sam Whiteman from WA (first-class average of 35.98) have a good 2016-17 Sheffield Shield, who knows?

Currently, if the Australian top order underperforms, the team does not have batsmen at No. 6 and No. 7 who are good enough to display the temperament and technique to help the team post a competitive score.

The selectors are happy to chop and change opening batsmen every two or three Tests, but Marsh and Nevill seem to get picked automatically despite prolonged inadequate returns. It’s an inconsistency that deserves closer scrutiny.

Who should they pick instead? That’s a topic for another post.

 

Post-NZ Tweaking

2015 NZ in Aus, , , , , , ,

Demote M Marsh, Promote Nevill

Mitchell Marsh is not a No. 6 Test batsman. This was made abundantly clear during the 2015 Ashes series, when he looked all at sea. He lacks technique, and has yet to prove he can graft an innings on anything other than a hard Aussie pitch. You need a proper batsman at No. 6. Mitchell Marsh is not that; he’s a reasonably talented slugger. It was well worth giving him a try as the batting all-rounder and I can’t fault the selectors for that, but after three Tests against New Zealand, it’s time to face facts. Although Marsh barely had a chance to bat in the first two games, he again struggled in the 3rd Test against the moving ball. His defenders might say he wasn’t the only one to struggle but it’s more about how he looks at the crease when under pressure; uncomfortable and short on technique.

Darren Lehmann has once again raised the possibility of promoting Peter Nevill to No. 6. This is a very good idea. Although regarding himself as a batting all-rounder, Mitchell Marsh is only justifying his selection at present as a zippy first-change medium-fast bowler. Dropping him to No. 7 would take some of the pressure off him and might help lead to an improvement in his batting average. Moreover, the numbers make sense; Mitchell Marsh’s first-class batting average of 31.00 (55 matches) doesn’t measure up to Nevill’s 41.01 (65 matches). Nevill should bat higher.

Sids on Borrowed Time

In the 3rd Test against NZ, Peter Siddle reminded the selectors why they had overlooked him for much of the previous year. The Adelaide Oval was supposed to be the place where Siddle would shine, taking wickets on a flattish pitch with his accurate line and length. It didn’t happen. This is not necessarily Siddle’s fault; after all, the pitch did not resemble Adelaide pitches of the past due to the introduction of the pink ball and the decision to leave more grass on it than usual. But Siddle looked very average to me. The selectors left him out for months due to their preference for faster bowlers, and sure enough, with his pace below 130 kph much of the time, Siddle simply did not look threatening. He was fortunate to achieve his (richly deserved) 200-wicket milestone in NZ’s first innings but did not look like taking a wicket in the second innings (and indeed did not).

With James Pattinson coming into the team to replace the injured Mitchell Starc for the West Indies series, Siddle looks likely to hold his place for a while, but it’s due more to good fortune than form. After his prolonged injury problems, Jackson Bird is back in form with 18 wickets from his first four Sheffield Shield matches this season, and will surely attract some attention from selectors. Even the evergreen Dougie Bollinger is taking wickets for NSW (12 of them in his first two Shield games), but at 34 he faces an uphill battle for Test selection.

If Pattinson performs and remains injury-free (two big ‘ifs’ there), I would expect to see Siddle dropped when Starc returns from injury.

Shaun Marsh Shouldn’t Stay

Shaun Marsh’s innings of 49 in the second innings in Adelaide, which helped Australia defeat New Zealand, probably won’t help him keep his place in the team. Although assisted by two benign pitches, Usman Khajawa batted superbly in the first two Tests against New Zealand and should slot back in when he returns from injury. I remain a big Shaun Marsh skeptic. If one more commentator tells me Marsh is ‘very talented’, my head will explode. The stats just don’t back it up. Marsh’s first-class average of 38.35 after 114 matches is mediocre. Moreover, it is Marsh’s repeated failure of nerve that should be cause for concern. True, his second innings performance in Adelaide probably rescued his team, but he is renowned for failing in pressure situations. The amateurish way in which he ran himself out for 2 in the first innings in Adelaide suggests nothing much has changed. This guy has been playing first-class cricket for fifteen years – if he hasn’t discovered a way to manage his nerves and get through tough scrapes, he is hardly likely to do so now.

 

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.

Nevill’s Numbers

2015 Ashes

A quick look at the first-class career of Australia’s newest Test wicketkeeper, Peter Nevill:

Peter Nevill's First-Class Career

SeasonMatInnsN.O.RunsHSAve10050CtSt
2008-0912018189001
2009-1032015510577.51118
2010-118134341108*37.911332
2011-129165570112*51.81322
2012-131018242165*26.30318
2013-1410173566100*40.413363
20142218253*82015
2014-1510144764235*76.423295
2015230957831.7013

Source: Cricket Archive

Fountain of Youth

2015 Ashes, , ,

At 23, Mitchell Marsh is 10.3 years younger than the man he is likely to replace in the Second Test, Shane Watson.

Peter Nevill, meanwhile, at 29 years and 275 days, is 8 years younger than Brad Haddin, whom he will replace at Lord’s.

This means the median age of the Australian eleven will fall by 15% from 33.7 to 28.7, and the number of players aged 30 or more will fall from 6 to 4.

Dad’s Army no more? At the very least, the Australians are reducing the number of excuses they can use if they lose at Lord’s.

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.