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.
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:
Enough is enough. David Warner must not be picked for the WTC final or the Ashes. It’s been fifteen months since we last called on the selectors to put Warner out to pasture (see Yesterday’s Hero). He’s still here, and dragging down the team’s chances every time he walks out to bat. It was alarming to see Andrew Macdonald quoted as saying “[a]t the moment Dave’s fully in our plans for the World Test Championship” after the end of the India Test series. He needs to explain the logic underlying that statement.
Ricky Ponting, too, seemed to share this sentiment, saying“I think they’ll definitely want to play him in the World Test Championship match”without giving a reason. Even Ponting, however, seems confused, saying in the same interview that he thinks Warner missed a chance to retire during the Australian summer and that “David’s record in the UK is not as strong as it is in some other places around the world”. Ricky, if he should have retired and plays poorly in England, why on earth would they select him for England? It makes no sense.
In 28 Test innings in 17 Tests since December 2021, Warner has made 847 runs at an average of 31.37. This is already mediocre for a Test opener, but if you strip out his aberrant 200 against a weak South African team in the first innings of the Second Test of the 2022-23 home series, it drops to 24.88. And it’s worth noting Alex Carey also made 111 in that same innings, while Steve Smith made 85 and both Travis Head and Cameron Green each made 51. So not the toughest of assignments, really.
If you look only at his most recent 7 Tests (11 innings) from the beginning of the 2022-23 home summer to the Second Test against India in Delhi when he retired hurt, he’s made 341 runs at 31.00. Strip out that one-off double ton against the Proteas, and his average for that period drops to 12.82. And this is the guy who averaged 9.50 across ten Test innings (including three consecutive ducks) in the most recent Ashes series in England in 2019 when he became Stuart Broad’s bunny.
It’s delusional to imagine Warner will do well in England this summer. And there are – for a change – a number of compelling alternatives.
*Renshaw’s number include Sheffield Shield, PM’s XI vs West Indies and three Tests. ^Harris’ numbers include Sheffield Shield and PM’s XI.
The most obvious is Cameron Bancroft, who deserves a Test recall several years after Sandpapergate. He’s the leading run-scorer in the 2022-23 Sheffield Shield, with 849 runs at 60.64, including four centuries. And while I don’t recommend picking Test players based on white ball, it doesn’t hurt his case that he’s made 327 runs at 65.40 in this season’s Marsh One Day Cup.
Or there’s Matt Renshaw. Although Renshaw failed in the three innings he played in India this time, it’s worth remembering he made a match-winning 68 in the first innings of the First Test in Pune in 2017 (when Steve O’Keefe cleaned up with 12 wickets). He’s had only an average sort of red ball season in 2022-23 with 501 runs at 41.75 including 81 and 101 not out for the PM’s XI against the West Indies but made 194 runs at 64.67 in the Marsh One Day Cup. He also made 620 runs at 47.69 for Somerset in the England County Championship in 2022, so he knowns English conditions.
Then there’s Marcus Harris, who continues to fall short when he gets his opportunities but who still represents a better bet than Warner. Harris only played 7 Shield games this season, making 468 runs at 39.00, but scoring two centuries and two 50s. Like Renshaw, he did well in the Marsh One Day Cup (315 runs at 63.00) and knows English conditions , making 726 runs at 42.70 for Gloucestershire in 2022.
Any one of these guys, who have all played Test cricket, could do a better job than Warner in England, although Bancroft is the obvious chance given the numbers he has racked up recently.
I don’t mean to be unkind to the teams visiting Australia this summer, but the West Indies and South Africa are not likely to provide the level of competition that India or England might represent for Australia, so I’m not expecting a lot of excitement from either of the truncated Test series. I earnestly hope to be proved wrong and if either team kicks Australia’s admittedly entitled and somewhat smug backside, I’d be the first to cheer.
So what can we talk about?
DAVID WARNER:
The talk about possibly returning David Warner to a leadership role baffles me. Why pick this fight? Cricket Australia would be roundly criticized, especially by England fans, who loathe Warner. But as far as I can tell, there’s precious little love for Warner among Australian fans, either. So what would Cricket Australia gain from it? At 36, Warner doesn’t have much time left in any case. Don’t pick that scab. Let him play out this Test summer and let him fade away to spend his last couple of years in T20. For God’s sake, don’t pick him for the 2023 Ashes in England. Stuart Broad is already whittling his voodoo doll of Warner.
GENERATIONAL CHANGE:
As usual, Australia is blessed with quick bowlers. Michael Neser, Mark Steketee, Jhye Richardson and Scott Boland are all excellent Test-quality bowlers and would be leading the attack in any cricketing nation if they didn’t have the misfortune to be born Australian. Shame, really. The best they can hope for is for Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood to all break down simultaneously.
There are fewer batsmen pushing for Test honours, though. Warner is 36 and Khawaja will be 36 on 18 December, so although the recent performance of both suggests they’ll keep their spots for the 2022-23 summer, surely both spots will need to be filled soon thereafter.
Still only 26, Queensland’s Matt Renshaw is pushing his way back to the front of the queue after losing his spot in the Test team after 11 Tests. Plenty of batsmen get their first chance when they’re too young, get dropped, and return when they have matured. Perhaps Renshaw will do the same. He has experimented both as an opener and in the middle order for Queensland, but if he maintains his current form, he’d have to be the leading candidate to replace Warner at the top of the order. After an underwhelming 2021-22 Sheffield Shield (410 runs at 29.29), Renshaw punched out 620 runs at 47.69 for Somerset in the 2022 English summer, scored 200 not out for Queensland in the second Shield match of the 2022-23 season, and made 81 and 101 not out for the Prime Minister’s XI against the West Indies in late November.
Peter Handscomb of Victoria (31) is probably the next candidate for a spot in the middle order if Khawaja becomes unavailable. He, too, fell from favour and lost his Test spot but racked up 697 runs at 49.79 in the 2021-22 Shield and has made 544 runs at 108.80 in the first four games of the 2022-23 Shield season, assisted with a 281 not out in Game 2. He also made 55 and 75 for the Prime Minister’s XI against the West Indies.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Half the Test team spots are up for grabs. And why not? Although he made some poor selections, I do think Rod Marsh got the rough end of the pineapple from the media even though he did make a few poor selections (yes, Mitchell Marsh, Moises Henriques, Glenn Maxwell, among others). I mean, Adam Voges made 1,358 Sheffield Shield runs in 2014-15 – that’s the third highest Shield run tally in history! Why wouldn’t you have picked him? It’s not Swampy’s fault that Voges has gone off a cliff. Peter Nevill was averaging over 40 with the bat and was a better ‘keeper when he was picked over Brad Haddin in England. It was the right call. It just didn’t work out.
But now replacements must be found. Mark Waugh has more or less said that anybody with runs under their belt who scores big in the third round of the Sheffield Shield is going to get a baggy green. Peter Handscomb has, you would think, nailed the audition with 215 today against NSW.
Whoever they pick, I have just one request: make sure they have a track record of scoring red ball centuries.
Too often the selectors have picked players to bat in the top six when those players have no history of making centuries on any sort of regular basis. Shane Watson was the best – I mean worst – example of this. Watson made 4 Test tons in 109 Test innings. He was never good enough to bat in the top six in a Test match. Mitchell Marsh has made only 4 first-class centuries in 110 innings, and reached 50 only twice in 31 Test innings. Again, not good enough.
But they are gone now.
Is Callum Ferguson really the right pick? Sure, he has 15 first-class centuries in 187 innings (sort of decent but not stunning), but he only played five Shield matches in 2015-16, scoring a mere 478 runs and made just the one century. Sure, in 2014-15 he scored four centuries, but that’s two years ago now. In Voges’ fabulous year of 2014-15, he made six centuries. Chris Rogers made five centuries in 2008-9 when he scored 1,195 runs. Ferguson made a ton in the first Shield match of 2016-17 but followed that with 0, 3, 1 and 4 in his next four red ball innings (the middle two of which were in his Test debut in Hobart). I hope he works out but I’m not very optimistic.
Handscomb looks like a logical replacement for Voges. He was third on the list of highest run-scorers in the 2015-16 Shield with 784 runs at 43.56 with 3 centuries and 4 fifties. Prior to his double ton against NSW, he had scores of 78, 10 and 60. That double century was his ninth century in his 100th first-class inning. Twice as good as Mitchell Marsh, I guess. Fingers crossed.
If you look at the entire 2015-16 Shield season PLUS the first two and half games of the 2016-17 season, you have Travis Dean and Jake Lehmann with four centuries each and Matt Renshaw and Kurtis Patterson with three each.
For my money, these are the sort of names one should be looking at. They won’t all work out but unless they can score Shield tons, they won’t score Test tons.
