Tag Archives: Smith

Denialism

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, , , , , ,

I’ve become weary of writing about the failings of David Warner and his dead weight on the team, but his comments in the press today can’t be ignored. He is living in denial.

He’s quoted as saying: ‘I’ve played a lot better than what I did last time [in 2019]. I’ve got in good positions, I’m looking to score, I’ve had a couple of unlucky dismissals and then dismissals where I’ve tried to negate the swing or the seam and it’s caught the outside edge of the bat.’

So that’s it. He’s been ‘unlucky’.

‘I’m looking to score,’ he says. Then SCORE! Please!

And playing better? Yes, his average of 25.13 so far this series does indeed surpass the 9.50 he recorded in the 2019 Ashes series, but it’s hardly good enough for Australia’s Test opener in one of the toughest series the team could wish to play. In a team of only eleven, Warner is the sixth highest run scorer. Even Mitchell Marsh has outscored Warner, and he’s played only four innings versus Warner’s eight. Warner’s average for the series is on a par with that of Carey (23.14), Starc (25.00) and Cummins (23.40), and he is supposed to be one of the team’s best players.

Warner isn’t the only Australia batter to underperform – Smith and Green are guilty, too – but Warner’s lack of runs stretches back several years and yet he keeps getting picked. One wonders if and how the selectors will take responsibility for choosing him and keeping Marcus Harris, who averaged 57.13 for Glamorgan this summer, on the bench.

Easy Runs Are Worth Less

2020-21 India in Aus, , , ,

No, not worthless, just worth less.

Simply put, centuries scored on Australian pitches against the likes of West Indies and Pakistan are just not worth as much as those scored in away series against India and England. When defending underperforming batsmen, coaches and captains often point to a player’s past scores as evidence of his ability to play at Test level, but they fail to apply a filter. Not all Test runs are created equal. Mediocre players can compete against weaker teams in friendly batting conditions, but fail consistently when the chips are down in tough matches against strong teams. I’ve written about this before, when lamenting Usman Khawaja’s inability to perform at Test level when required.

Why is Steve Smith so good (prior to the current series, at least!)? Just in the past four years (going back to Feb 2017), he has played in four Tests in which he was the only batsman from either side to score a century (twice in India in early 2017, one against England at the Gabba in Nov 2017 and again at Old Trafford in Sep 2019). That’s actually quite unusual, especially against good teams. In that time, he made four other centuries as well, but was not the only player in the match to do so. And in that four year period, he won four Player of the Match awards for setting his team up for victory with a big first innings score. This is, of course, his job, and it’s why he is the cornerstone of the batting lineup.

But it’s also the job of the other batsmen in the top six.

Joe Burns and Travis Head have not managed to do this job because they aren’t good enough, and it should be obvious.

Take Burns: In 40 Test innings, Burns has scored four Test centuries, but NEVER has he been the only batsman in the match to score a ton. Not once. When Burns gets runs, lots of others do, too. In three out of four cases, THREE other players in the same match also made tons when Burns did, and in the fourth case two players made centuries and the third (Kane Williamson) made 97.

  • 129 vs NZ, Gabba, Nov 2015: Also, D Warner scored 163 and 116, U Khawaja 174, K Williamson 140.
  • 128 vs W Indies, MCG, Dec 2015: Also, U Khawaja scored 144, S Smith 134, A Voges 106
  • 170 vs NZ, Christchurch, Feb 2016: Also, B McCullum 145, S Smith 138, K Williamson 97
  • 180 vs Sri Lanka, Canberra, Feb 2019: Also, T Head 161, K Patterson 114, U Khawaja 101

And Burns has had little opportunity to prove himself against the stronger teams (which isn’t his fault, of course). He has only played four Tests against India – his first two Tests in 2014-15 and the most recent two Tests in Australia in December 2020 – and has never played a Test against England. He has only played two Tests against South Africa (in 2016 and 2018, when the Proteas were stronger than they are now), making scores of 1, 0, 4 and 42. In contrast, eight of his 23 Tests have been against New Zealand.

Meanwhile, Burns continues to push his hands at the ball and leave a gap between bat and pad you could drive a lorry through. It’s easy being an armchair critic (fun, too!) but why can’t the coaches see this?

It’s a similar tale for Travis Head. In 31 Test innings, he has only scored two Test centuries, the first of which was the game against Sri Lanka in Feb 2019 (see above) in which Burns, Patterson and Khawaja all got BIG runs. The second was against New Zealand in Dec 2019 at the MCG, where he scored 114 while Smith scored 85, Paine 79 and Tom Blundell 121. I’ve analyzed Head’s returns before but suffice it to say, Head has not demonstrated an ability to lead the team to victory with the bat and continues to either slash the ball to gully or the slips, or play back and get rapped on the pads.

What about Matt Wade? His 59 Test innings have been spread out over almost nine years. Wade’s first two Test centuries (106 against West Indies in Apr 2012 and 102* against Sri Lanka in Jan 2013) were both achieved in matches in which no other player reached three figures. The same is true of his fourth ton in 2019 against England at The Oval, when he made 117 in the second innings when no other batsman in his team scored more than 24 (the team folded for 263 chasing 399 to win). His fourth century (110) was made against England in 2019 when he formed a 126-run partnership with Steve Smith, helping set England a target of 398. England fell 251 runs short and Australia took a 1-0 lead in the Ashes, which they eventually retained, so Wade’s innings was important. To be sure, Wade’s contributions of late have been frustrating in that he hasn’t managed to go on past 40, but his recent scores have been getting better rather than worse, which can’t be said for Burns and Head. This is why, I suggest, Burns and Head are on the chopping block whereas Wade seems likely to hold on (for now).

And Marnus?

The jury is still out.

Believe it or not, Marnus has still only played 27 Test innings across 16 Test matches. For two of his four centuries – 185 against Pakistan at the Gabba in Nov 2019 and 215 against New Zealand at the SCG in Jan 2020 – he won the Player of the Match award for setting his team up with a big first innings total. However, for only one of his tons was he the sole centurion in the match (143 vs NZ in Perth in Dec 2019) and he has yet to make a century against either England or India.

  • 185 vs Pak, Gabba, Nov 19: Also, Warner 154, B Azam 104
  • 162 vs Pak, Adelaide, Nov 19: Also Warner 335, B Azam 97, Yasir Shah 113
  • 143 vs NZ, Perth, Dec 19: No other centuries in the match
  • 215 vs NZ, SCG, Jan 20: Also, Warner 111.

So clearly the pressure is on Marnus to prove his early success wasn’t just the result of easy games at home against weaker sides. His 353 runs at 50.43 in the 2019 Ashes away series (including four successive half centuries) obviously gave the selectors reason to be optimistic, but he needs to back it up with a big score against India.

Do, or do not. There is no ‘try’.

Shuffling a Weak Hand

2020-21 India in Aus, , , , , , , ,

Australia’s batting is very poor, and the cupboard is pretty darn bare.

Marnus Labuschagne is really the only batsman who can hold his head up after two Tests against India, and even he has only managed 129 runs at 32.25 in four innings. Cameron Green looks promising, but it’s too early to tell, and we should give him another few Tests at least before we draw conclusions.

So what does Australia do now?

Burns must go. It was obvious before the series began he was not up to the task, and his half-century in the second innings in Adelaide really should be discounted as it was made under little pressure. Now even the TV commentators seem to agree he won’t play in the Third Test. Dear Justin Langer, loyalty to your players is very sweet, but denial is not a river in Egypt.

So let’s assume Burns is a goner.

Marcus Harris should come in. True, Harris’ first nine Tests were uninspiring (385 runs from 17 innings at 24.06) but his form in the Sheffield Shield this season has been good (355 runs at 118.33 including a double ton and a 71) and he made scores of 35, 25*, 26 and 5 against India A and India in the touring party’s warm-up matches. Not the sort of numbers that make you do backflips, but better than what Burns offers. The selectors wanted Burns to succeed so they could persist with a LH/RH opening combination, but the right-hand batsman isn’t doing you much good if he can’t last past the first or second over, and that’s how poor Burns’ technique has been. Yes, folks, we’re picking openers (i.e. Harris) who stand a chance of getting to 30. That’s how low we’ve sunk.

There is still a suggestion that David Warner will be unavailable for the Third Test. If so, Will Pucovski should be given a chance. At almost 23 years of age, he’s still pretty green with only 23 first-class games under his belt (1,744 runs at 54.50), but he has 6 centuries and 5 half-centuries in that time, including two double tons so far this Sheffield Shield season oh please God let him be successful we so desperately need a decent opening batsman.

So if this all pans out, Wade drops into the middle order and Travis Head should be dropped. Head was given 19 Tests to make an impact, and his average is getting worse, not better.

But if injury strikes Wade, I would suggest the selectors give Alex Carey an opportunity, probably moving Green up to No. 5.

Carey has been pigeon-holed as a white ball specialist, but I see no reason why he can’t play Test cricket. For a start, he has a genuinely good batting technique, and is not merely a bash-&-crash merchant like certain other white ball sloggers who’ve been picked for the Test team in the past (e.g. Aaron Finch, Mitchell Marsh, Glenn Maxwell). Carey has a first-class batting average of 34.13, but his recent form suggests he is performing above that level. He played only four Sheffield Shield matches in the 2019-20 season due to his white-ball duties for Australia, but made 386 runs at 55.14, with two centuries and a 73 in seven innings. Since then, he made 106 in an ODI against England in September 2020. The selectors obviously suspect he can play red ball cricket, because they gave him a chance for Australia A vs India in a practice match prior to the First Test. He made 32 and 58 in that game.

And it would be nice if Steve Smith found some form. It’s difficult to be too hard on him because he has supported the entire top order for the past five years and one would think one of the other batsmen should step up for a change.

One Last Chance. Again.

2017-18 in S Africa,

This morning’s press reports the decision by the ICC to clear South African bowler Kagiso Rabada to play in the Third Test against Australia in Cape Town tomorrow.

‘It’s the best thing for Test cricket,’ former opening batsman Chris Rogers is quoted as saying. Michael Vaughan and Graeme Smith have saluted the decision. The entire South African camp is ecstatic.

I think it’s a terrible decision for cricket, and brings us one step closer to a nasty physical altercation on the pitch. I am less concerned about whether or not Rabada himself plays, but more troubled by the manner in which the rules were bent for someone important.

Surely you either have rules governing standards of behaviour, or you don’t. And I’m not taking sides here, either, because it’s Rabada. The book should have been thrown equally hard at Warner and de Kock, too, regardless of who said what to whom. Otherwise, chuck the book in the bin.

When I see the Rabada decision, I interpret this as the ICC saying ‘don’t worry about the rules, if you are an important enough player, we let you off (or downgrade the charge) if you break them’. The original charge was that Rabada made ‘inappropriate and deliberate physical contact’ with Steve Smith. Judicial Commissioner Mike Heron is reported as saying “I am not ‘comfortably satisfied’ that Mr Rabada intended to make contact and I therefore find him not guilty of the charge”.

Wow. Rabada didn’t intend to nudge Smith? I must have seen a different piece of footage.

So are there two sets of rules (one for prominent players and another for lesser cricketers), or are the rules themselves a waste of time?

Having just spent a summer coaching a team of 9-year olds, one of the aspects of cricket I am most keen to impart to younger players is respect for each other and respect for the game. We give the opposition team three cheers after the game, and always ensure the players shake hands. This is because it matters.

If young players see Test stars making physical contact with each other and yelling obscenities – and then being forgiven for it – what sort of behaviour should we expect them to exhibit when they walk out to play?

I am not naive. I understand that with so much money at stake in professional sport, it is often difficult to prevent a win-at-all-costs attitude creeping into sport. Cricketers are not robots; emotions will rise and tempers will flare. But without clearly articulated rules and penalties applied, there is no mechanism in place to correct aberrant behaviour. I am also not naive enough to imagine the ICC is immune to pressure to keep the best players on the pitch so as to maximize TV viewer numbers (I don’t envy Commissioner Heron his job).

When incidents occur on the pitch, the first thing the TV commentators say is that the umpires should be given more authority to stamp out this sort of thing. I agree. But when the day’s play is over, it seems, everybody shrugs and says it is part of the game.

Back to Chris Rogers again: “I’m not a huge fan of seeing all the send offs and the nasty stuff that’s going on behind the scenes,” he said. “Cricket’s a sport and it’s there to be enjoyed – you play it hard but you can still play it hard with respect.” I agree with both these points, so I fail to see how Rogers can say this while simultaneously claiming the Rabada decision is the ‘best thing for Test cricket’. To me, the two sentiments are mutually exclusive.

Personally, as one humble cricket fan, I am sick to death of this nonsense. Controversy over sledging – particularly but not exclusively  by Australian players – has been raging for years. Many commentators, most of whom are former players, chuckle that it is ‘good for the game’ and that it’s important ‘not to take a backward step’ and that ‘the public likes to see a bit of fire’.

Really?

I don’t.

Cricketers can and should be be vocal in the field, encouraging and congratulating their teammates and keeping their spirits up. I have never understood why abuse is necessary or how it ‘adds to the game’. I just don’t get it.

My greatest concern is that one day an angry batsman gets sledged once too often and swings his bat at an opposition player or a bowler swings his fist and knocks a batsman down. If players believe they can evade penalties, such an incident is inevitable.

Then how will little Johnny or Susie behave when they walk out to play school cricket on Saturday morning?

Parents, cricket fans and commentators will all shake their heads sadly and say, oh dear, why was nothing done to prevent this?

 

Not Rocket Science

2017 Aus in Bangladesh, , , , ,

The post-mortem from the 1st Test against Bangladesh in Mirpur doesn’t need to be long. In fact, it would be a mistake to over-analyse it.

1) Bangladesh are not the easy-beats they used to be. They’ve beaten England and Sri Lanka in the past year. Any cricket ‘writer’ who was surprised by Bangladesh’s victory probably covers the rugby league in the off season.

2) Australia did not prepare. Australia started well in India in February then fell in a steaming heap thereafter. A few of them went off to the IPL, and a few participated in a very half-hearted Champions Trophy campaign. None played red ball cricket for five months. And don’t anyone try and claim that a brief training camp in Darwin represented serious preparation. It was better than nothing, but not by much.

3) Australia is only a mediocre team. Its only world-class Test cricketers are Smith, Starc (currently absent), Hazlewood and Lyon. Warner could arguably now join that list, but if it wasn’t for his 2nd-innings ton in Mirpur, I would not have included him. Warner is mostly a flat track bully who has always struggled against spin, so he actually deserves a lot of kudos for being the only batsman to dig deep and produce a good innings in Mirpur. I honestly didn’t think he was capable of that knock. I would go as far as to speculate that it might prolong his career, coming at a time when his confidence must have been starting to flag after a string of low scores.

4) Bangladesh didn’t play all that well, but Australia played really really badly. I don’t want to be mean to Bangladesh, but they didn’t really play above-average cricket. It’s just that Australia played awfully, specifically with the bat. The spinners on both teams bowled adequately, with the spectacularly uneven bounce helping them a lot. Tamim Iqbal, Shakib Al-Hasan, Renshaw and Warner proved that runs could be scored if only one was prepared to work for them, but the Australian batsmen again lacked the skill and discipline. As Smith admitted after the match, they forgot whatever they had learned in India. Why? See Points 2) and 3) above.

The changes required for the 2nd Test in Chittagong are pretty obvious (which doesn’t mean the selectors will make them).

Matthew Wade must go. I don’t blame him one bit for letting through a lot of byes on that nightmare Mirpur pitch but his batting is nothing short of abysmal. He is now a dead weight, and nowhere near the player he once was. Peter Handscomb is by no means a long-term Test ‘keeper, but Australia needs batsmen, and it needs them NOW. Wade must be dropped and Handscomb given the gloves in Chittagong, thereby allowing Hilton Cartwright an audition. Before the Ashes begin in November, the selectors can observe the leading contenders for ‘keeper-batsman in the first three rounds of the Sheffield Shield. Maybe they’ll go back to Peter Nevill, maybe they’ll try someone else, but to pretend Wade is Test standard is to indulge dangerous self-delusion.

Other than that, the only other change to make appears to have been made; i.e. bring in a third spinner and have Cummins as the sole quick.

Glenn Maxwell must also go but that can wait until after this series.

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.

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.

Don’t Cut Voges

2015 Ashes, , , , ,

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.