Tag Archives: Rogers

Lay Off the Selectors

August 12, 20152015 AshesBancroft, Burns, Clarke, Cummins, Haddin, Hazlewood, Johnson, Khawaja, Lyon, Marsh, Nevill, Pattinson, Rogers, Siddle, Smith, Starc, Voges, WarnerThe Umpire

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.

Does County Experience Matter?

August 11, 20152015 AshesBoon, Border, Clarke, Hayden, Hussey, Jones, Martyn, Rogers, Slater, Taylor, Voges, Warner, WaughThe Umpire

The outcome of each Ashes series is beginning to follow a trend. You host the series, you win. As Tom Fordyce of the BBC writes, is home advantage becoming too important?

England has won the past four Ashes series on home soil. Australia has won six of the past seven Ashes series played in Australia, including 5-0 series victories in two of the past three. A visiting team can win an away series; it just doesn’t happen very often. At least not anymore (see table).

	In ENG		In AUS
No. of Tests won	ENG	AUS	ENG	AUS
1981	3	1
1982-83			1	2
1985	3	1
1986-87			2	1
1987-88
1989	0	4
1990-91			0	3
1993	1	4
1994-95			1	3
1997	2	3
1998-99			1	3
2001	1	4
2002-03			1	4
2005	2	1
2006-07			0	5
2009	2	1
2010-11			3	1
2013	3	0
2013-14			0	5
2015	3	1

SUBTOTAL	20	20	9	27
1981-87	6	2	3	3
1989-2001	4	15	2	9
2002-present	10	3	3	11

When the Australian batsmen once again displayed great ineptitude against the swinging ball at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge, some suggested they needed to play more county cricket to learn how to adjust their techniques to the alien conditions.

That must be it, I thought. That makes perfect sense. Problem solved. Get the Aussies to spend more time in the UK and we’ll be more competitive next time around. Australia won four consecutive Ashes series in England between 1989 and 2001. How did they do it? Surely the batsmen of that era played more county cricket and could adapt better to the conditions than today’s batsmen.

Well, not exactly.

Australia’s two leading run-scorers in the 1989-2001 period in England (see table below*) – in which Australia won 15 Tests and lost only 4 – were Steve Waugh (22 Tests across all four Ashes series played in England in that period) and Mark Taylor (18 Tests in three series). Waugh played a mere 9 county matches for Somerset in 1987-88, and Taylor played no county cricket at all. Both players made over 1,500 runs in their Ashes Tests in England despite little or no county experience .

Tests played in England 1989-2001					County Championship matches (total career)
	Matches	Runs	Ave	100s	Matches	Runs	Ave	100s
S Waugh	22	1633	74.22	7	11	1042	94.72	6
M Waugh	17	1189	49.54	3	39	2597	47.21	9
A Border	12	875	62.50	1	37	2648	55.16	10
D Boon	12	997	62.31	3	47	2773	36.97	6
D Jones	6	566	70.75	2	34	2554	51.08	6
M Taylor	18	1584	52.80	5
M Slater	10	586	34.47	1	23	1140	29.23	1
R Ponting	8	579	44.53	2	7	790	112.85	4
M Hayden	5	234	33.42	0	40	3453	57.55	12
D Martyn	5	382	76.40	2	2	342	171	1
A Gilchrist	5	340	68.00	1

All Tests played in England	Matches	Runs	Ave	100s	County Matches	Runs	Ave	100s
A Border	25	2082	65.06	5	37	2648	55.16	10
D Boon	16	1121	48.73	3	47	2773	36.97	6
R Ponting	18	1323	44.10	4	7	790	112.85	4
M Hayden	10	552	34.50	1	40	3453	57.55	12
D Martyn	10	560	40.00	2	2	342	171	1
A Gilchrist	10	521	40.07	1
M Hussey	5	276	34.5	1	30	3742	85.04	12
M Clarke	19	1281	41.32	3	4	446	63.71	3
C Rogers	9	804	50.25	2	65	5784	53.06	18
D Warner	7	471	33.64	0
A Voges	4	125	20.83	0	27	1741	44.64	4

Allan Border, Mark Waugh, David Boon and Dean Jones played a fair bit of county cricket, and all four recorded good averages in their Ashes Tests in England. Is there a cause-&-effect relationship here? Perhaps.

Michael Slater played 23 county matches and did not perform particularly well, and in his ten Ashes Tests in England averaged only 34.47. On the face of it, his county experience didn’t seem to help much.

And then the numbers become more confusing.

Damien Martyn played almost no county cricket but had an excellent 2001 Ashes series in England, averaging 76.40.

Matthew Hayden averaged a healthy 57.55 for Hampshire and Northamptonshire but this did not translate into runs in Ashes Tests in England, where he made only a single century in ten Tests and averaged 34.50. Why?

Mike Hussey averaged an insane 85.04 and scored 12 centuries playing for three English counties, but in his only Ashes series in England (in 2009), he managed 276 runs in 8 innings at 34.50. Hmm.

You get the idea. Some players who made lots of county runs didn’t do the same in Ashes Tests in England. Some who crushed the Poms in England in the Ashes played no county cricket at all.

Before the current 2015 Ashes series began, Michael Clarke had played 15 Ashes Tests in England and averaged 48.50. He has played almost no county cricket. David Warner has made 333 runs in the first four Tests of the current season, averaging 41.63. Australia needs more from him, but it’s an improvement on his 2013 effort (138 runs at 23.00). Warner has not played county cricket, either.

Chris Rogers is the poster child for Aussies in country cricket. After 65 county matches, he has 5,784 runs at 53.06, with 18 centuries. During the current Ashes series, he has 437 runs in four Tests at 62.43. You’d be hard pressed to deny that Rogers’ county experience has helped him.

But then there’s Adam Voges, who also has plenty of county experience (1,741 runs at 44.64) but has made only 125 runs at 20.83 in the current series. Is he too old now? That seems an overly simplistic explanation – he’s younger than Chris Rogers!

Logic would certainly imply that time spent playing English county cricket is more likely than not to help Australian batsmen adjust to English conditions. But the data suggests it is anything but a silver bullet.

Allan Border has been quoted as saying “The gear system – to be able to go up and down through the gears depending on the circumstances you find yourself in. That’s what we’re not doing well. We seem to have one or two gears and it’s top gear, go hard. We’ve got to learn the art of batting in Test cricket.”

Yep. Which suggests we need to take more of a look at what the coaches are telling the players than merely assuming a lack of county experience is the problem.

But that’s a subject for the next post.

* Data from Cricket Archive

Don’t Cut Voges

August 2, 20152015 AshesClarke, Rogers, S Marsh, Smith, Voges, WarnerThe Umpire

The selectors should not cut Adam Voges before the 4th Test at Trent Bridge.

Warner, Rogers and Smith will obviously play. Smith failed twice at Edgbaston but I doubt many would argue he isn’t Australia’s best batsman. He needs to master the Art of the Leave outside off stump, but he’s only 26 so give him time.

Clarke is obviously in woeful form that might trigger his retirement after the Ashes but he’s the skipper and therefore won’t be dropped before the end of the Fifth Test. Sure, he might pull a Graeme Swann and bail out on his teammates by retiring in the middle of a tough series, but whatever else you might say about Clarke, I don’t think he would do such a thing. Like him or loathe him, that’s not his way. Either he’ll make a score soon or he won’t , but he’s not going anywhere soon.

Mitchell Marsh is not a Test No. 6 batsman. We knew that before Edgbaston but it’s even more obvious now. But I would still have him over Shane Watson any day of the week. It’s ironic; Marsh considers himself a batting all-rounder but it’s his bowling that has impressed so far at Lord’s and to a lesser extent at Edgbaston. When Marsh comes on to bowl, he’s far more likely to take a wicket than Watson. Sure, he needs to improve as a batsmen but he’s only 23 and needs more time. Think back to when Steve Smith played his first Ashes series in Australia. He was inserted as a leg spinner and batted at No. 6, and was absolutely hopeless. It’s worth giving Marsh more time.

Which leaves us with Voges.

The selectors often cop flack but who could fault them for picking Voges when he scored 1,358 runs at an average of 104.46 in last season’s Sheffield Shield? The guy has played 167 first class matches and made 11,141 runs at 45.10. Then he goes and makes a century on Test debut; it was ‘only’ against the West Indies but it was also a pressure situation in which Australia was struggling at 6/126 in Dominica. He has also played in England a lot, turning out for Middlesex, Hampshire and Nottinghamshire during his career. Voges can play.

Like most of us, I’m at a loss to explain why Voges has only scored 73 runs at 14.60 in five innings so far this series. Why he continues to waft the bat outside off stump is something I can’t explain. Nerves, perhaps? He seems to be struggling with the swinging ball but so is every other Australian batsman. Every cricket journalist whose work I’ve read since Edgbaston has condemned Voges to the scrapheap. All of them assume he’ll be replaced at Trent Bridge by Shaun Marsh.

I’m going to go the other way. I think they should keep Voges. To swap Voges for Shaun Marsh merely because the Aussie media is baying for blood would be illogical, and far riskier than keeping him.

To be sure, Voges’ past five innings have been inadequate, but it’s only five innings. Let’s remember why Voges was selected in the first place; i.e. he has scored buckets of runs in recent times. He has a long and admirable track record, and bailed Australia out of trouble only two months ago in Dominica. Yes, it’s the Ashes now and the pressure is on, but five poor scores is not enough to pull the rug out from somebody you thought was good enough only a few weeks ago.

Meanwhile, is Shaun Marsh a reliable Test batsman? I think he is anything but.

Marsh has made 2 centuries and 4 fifties in his 25 Test innings to date; in other words, he has made 50 or more in 24% of his Test innings. This is a lower ratio than even Shane Watson, who made 50 or more in 26% of his 109 Test innings and was renowned for failing to live up to his potential in Test cricket. Incidentally, that same ratio is 40% for Chris Rogers and 37% for both Steve Smith and David Warner. Even for Michael Clarke it is 28% (but that number would have been far higher as recently as two years ago before Clarke’s form went into decline). As they did for a long time with Shane Watson, the selectors like to say Shaun Marsh’s mediocre Test average (35.79) does not reflect his ‘talent’. I think it’s pretty spot on, and it isn’t good enough.

Shaun Marsh has a history of not performing under pressure. In my view, it would be a mistake to consider his centuries in tour matches against a WICB President’s XI in Antigua in May and then against Kent and Derbyshire as evidence of his readiness to meet Australia’s Test requirements. His brother Mitchell is living proof that big scores against pop-gun county bowling attacks on flat decks do not necessarily mean much.

But Australia are 2-1 down, and the pressure is on the selectors. If the media coverage is correct, Voges will be jettisoned for Marsh at Trent Bridge. I can understand why the selectors might do this just to be seen to be taking action, but I think Voges is the better bet of the two.

Ban(croft) For Your Buck

July 31, 20152015 Aus A in IndiaBancroft, Burns, RogersThe Umpire

With the Australian Test side imploding so dreadfully at Edgbaston, one performance yesterday by an Australian batsman escaped the attention of many.

Yesterday, Cameron Bancroft, the 22-year old Western Australian opener, scored 150 off 267 balls for Australia A against India A in Chennai. Bancroft’s innings was all the more impressive considering it was part of a team score of 9/329 and was made against former Indian Test bowlers such as Varun Aaron and Pragyan Ohja. No other batsman in the Australia A team scored higher than 54, and India A had already been bowled out for 135. This was no batsman’s paradise. Bancroft’s big ton came after scores of 2 and 51 in Australia A’s first tour match last week.

Bancroft’s innings could be timely. Since the beginning of the current Ashes series, Chris ‘Buck’ Rogers has clearly regretted mentioning the likelihood of his retirement at the end of the series as it has created a distraction for him, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t going to happen.

Bancroft may have just stormed to the front of the queue of players competing to replace Rogers. He has only played 23 first class matches to date, but was the third highest run scorer in the 2013-14 Sheffield Shield with 896 runs at 47.15 with 3 centuries and a top score of 211. It was this performance that won him selection for the current tour of India by Australia A.

With Adam Voges (who, incidentally, was the Shield’s top scorer in 2014-15 with 1,358 runs at 104.46) struggling to retain his Test place, one would think the selectors will give Shaun Marsh first crack. Personally, I wouldn’t – I think both Marsh brothers are almost as over-rated by the selectors as Shane Watson was, although Mitchell Marsh, at only 23, shows promise if given enough time to develop. Unfortunately, in the current Ashes squad there are no other batting alternatives to Shaun.

Assuming Rogers retires this year and Voges is dropped, a vacancy will open up (possibly two, if Michael Clarke retires, but’s that for another post).

In fairness, Joe Burns is almost certainly the next batsman to be picked. He’s already played two Tests and didn’t do badly (two half centuries in the second of his two Tests in the summer of 2014-15). Burns earned his Test debut against India in Australia last summer batting at No. 6, mostly because the selectors couldn’t squeeze him in anywhere else. But I think it’s fair to say they envision him batting at the top of the order (he opens the batting for Queensland, after all) once Rogers retires. Moreover, Burns, who will be 26 in September, is a little further advanced than Bancroft, with 3,799 first class runs at 41.29 from 59 matches. In the 2014-15 Sheffield Shield, he was the sixth highest run scorer with 793 runs at 52.86 with 2 centuries and a top score of 183.

But nothing is certain. Burns is currently on the Australia A tour of India as well but was out for only 8 in yesterday’s game (in which Bancroft made 150). He did not play in the first match last week. Moreover, he has had a less than stellar season playing for Middlesex this year, where he has made only 320 runs at 29.09, with a top score of 87.

You’re only as good as your last season. Once Buck retires, Burns might need to look over his shoulder for Bancroft.

(So you do get the headline for this post? Bancroft for your Buck; i.e. Buck Rogers? Well, I thought it was almost clever. Wow, there’s no pleasing some people. )