Tag Archives: Cricket Australia

Cricket: Australia A … are these guys really the next in line?

August 2, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , Leave a comment

I have already written once before about my views on the Australia A squad presently touring Africa and it would be fair to say that that blog lead to a number of responses most of which were focus on my thoughts about the bowling attack OR about the fact that people do not consider the Australia A team to be an Australian “Second XI” but rather a development squad.

I remain unconvinced by arguments that the Australia A team is merely a development squad or, more to the point, that there is a difference between it being a “second XI” or a “development squad”. The fact is that by its very nature a “development squad” should represent a squad of the next in line for Australian selection. If that is what this squad is meant to represent then I fear that the development phase that cricket in this country is going through has a very long way to go.

The reasons for this fear can be easily found by looking squarely at the captain for this tour: Aaron Finch. I am sure he is a lovely bloke but is he really a future captain of Australia? For that matter: is he really a future opening batsman or top order batsman for Australia? Before you answer that question consider these facts:

  1. Last first class season he played in four Sheffield Shield games for Victoria and opened in none of them.
  2. He has played in 32 first class games and has an average of 30.52 from those games.
  3. In 56 first class innings he has 2 hundreds.
  4. Some will suggest that his first class record is supplemented well by his ODI record and on that basis he ought be selected in all forms. Seven ODIs for Australia so far for Finch with a batter average of 15 would suggest otherwise.

Based on those numbers can anyone convince me he is in the frame right now to be the next top order batsman in a baggy green? Does the absurdity of that suggestion give a true indicia that this team presently getting belted in Africa is NOT a development squad for the test team but rather the first class games on this tour are merely a side show along the path to the 50 over games to come?

Consider the current top order for this FIRST CLASS fixture against South Africa A: Finch, Marsh S, Doolan, Maddinson and Maxwell. I have already commented on the inclusion of Finch. Of that top order:

  • Shaun Marsh has had his turn playing for Australia and is injury prone to say the least. He did not open the batting for Australia nor does he regularly for Western Australia yet he finds himself at the top of the order for Australia A: a position that he has batted for Australia in one day cricket and his position in the Western Australia order in the Ryobi Cup.
  • Alex Doolan is a player of the future but how long is that future given that he is already a rising 28 year old? If we have learned nothing else from the late inclusion of Mike Hussey to the test team we know that players who start that late have a very limited time at the top.
  • Nic Maddinson is also a player of the future and at 21 has time to develop. Equally he is another player who is averaging below 40 in first class cricket which must improve.
  • Glenn Maxwell has been slotted in at number 5 in the batting order after a season of first class cricket in Australia where he played 3 games for Victoria in the Sheffield Shield and averaged 22.50 in his 4 innings. In those games he batted at number 5 once and at number 7 the remainder and when selected for Australia A he batted at number 8. Compellingly he was slotted in at number 8 for Australia when he debuted in the test team in India.

Based on the foregoing, it seems to me that only 2 of the top 5 batsmen in the Australia A team presently playing in Africa are in the frame to be the next players to step into the test team in the top 5 of the batting order. They are Doolan and Maddinson. Maxwell is an lower order batsman at the top level yet bizarrely he is in the top order for Australia A. Shaun Marsh has had his time in the test team but is obviously still in the frame for the ODI team: why else would he be opening here?

People wonder where the “pipeline” of batsmen coming through for the Australian team is: it seems to me that the bulk of them are having the winter off in their homes in Australia or are playing county cricket. They have not been rewarded with selection to the Australian A team.

I can only conclude given the foregoing that this squad in Africa is not designed to represent a group of players who are all striving for test match selection rather it is a squad that is more focused on preparing players for one day and T20 cricket. Why else would they be captained by a specialist one day and T20 cricketer who gets very limited playing time for his first class team? Why else would a batsman who bats at 7 and 8 in test arena but higher in ODI / T20 cricket be batting at number 5 in this team?

If I am wrong and this team represents the players the Inverarity and his merry band of selectors really think are the next in line for the test team then heaven help Australian fans who are just starting to get used to the reality of the current state of cricket in this country because we are going to have a long wait to return to where we once were!

 

The Ashes: Katich is not coming back … next topic please!

August 1, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

I have been reading a lot recently about a possible return of Simon Katich to the Australian set up, particularly given the issues that Australia have been having at the top of the order. I have exclaimed on this blog before and I will say it again here now: Katich is NOT coming back and it is time to get over it!

I remain firmly of the view that Michael Clarke has marked Katich's card “never to be selected again” and whilst Clarke is not a selector it would be idiocy to suggest that the selectors would put a player into the team that the captain did not wish to play with.

That really should be the end of the argument: regardless of form Katich is not going to be selected because Clarke does not want him there. I don't understand campaigns on social media and in print to bring Katich back for that reason alone. So lets consider a hypothetical scenario where Clarke decides that he wants Katich back in the team. The fact is that even in that scenario he could not come back to the Australian team for a very simple reason: on 12 June 2012 he retired from first class cricket in Australia.

Read that date again: 13 months ago the man some believe to be a saviour to the Australian cricket team ceased to be a first class cricketer in the Australian system. Yes he played in the BBL in season 2012/13 but he did not play any other top level cricket. I concede that he has been in excellent form in the county cricket competition but the question must be asked: Has Australian cricket fallen so far that a soon to be 38 year old who is a part time cricketer at best and who does not play in the first class competition in Australia is the only answer?

More to the point: do we really want someone who has clearly shown he has no interest in being involved in the Australian set up (why else would he be playing in England first class cricket but not in the Australian version) back in the team?

Don't get me wrong: I rate Simon Katich as a cricket and I firmly believe he should never have been dropped from the Australian team. I would go so far as to say that I would love to have him in the team right now. However, these are the facts:

  1. The captain of the Australian cricket team does not want him in the team; AND
  2. The man himself has shown, overtly, that he does not want to be a part of the Australian set up.

Given those facts, surely it is time for pundits and fans alike to cease beating the dead horse that is the ongoing campaign for Katich's return and focus on supporting the players that actually do want to be involved in the Australian setup?

The only thing worse than this focus on a return from Katich is the yearly campaign for a return from Shane Warne but it is becoming a close run thing … and that is really saying something is it not?

The Ashes: Memo to Australian Selectors (and Fans) … keep calm and don’t do anything stupid!

July 27, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , 1 Comment

Australia’s touring XI at Hove had a very good day overnight scoring 5/354 off 92 overs. All of the batsmen were in the runs save for the man many thought most likely, though not including me, to be an inclusion for the next test, Matthew Wade, who scored an 8 ball duck.

At the top of the order, stand in captain Ed Cowan scored 66 and current number four in the test line up Phil Hughes scored 84. Steve Smith is presently not out on 98.

Of course, Phil Hughes’ innings coupled with the form of David Warner on his sojourn in Africa, has led for some to renew their vehement call for Shane Watson or Chris Rogers (or both) to be dropped in favour of a return by Warner or a move to the top of the order for Hughes.

I sincerely hope that the Australian selectors take a moment and think before doing anything so stupid! And here is why:

* I concede that Phil Hughes was the form opener in the Sheffield Shield competition last season, along with Chris Rogers, averaging over 50 runs per innings in the games he played. Are people forgetting that he is coming into the third test off the back of a performance that saw him reap 2 runs (in total) as well as wrongly use 2 reviews?

* Any runs against Sussex by the Australians need to be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to the form implications that may flow from them. Monty Panesar aside, the bowling attack of Jordan, Hatchett and Liddle is hardly a bowling line up that is likely to send shock waves through any first class cricket line up let alone a Australian touring XI. Jimmy Anderson these blokes are not.

* I have written about my thoughts on a return to the fold for David Warner on this blog and remain vehement in my view that he needs to undertake an apprenticeship in first class cricket and to wait his turn on form. One innings does not make a summer and, frankly, given the score that the South African’s have put up overnight it looks like the pitch that has been trotted out in Pretoria is an absolute road. Warner needs to stay in Africa.

Frankly: the main thing cricket in Australia and the cricketers that represent this country need right now is stability. Toying with the batting order and bringing back a player who presents as a toxic influence at worst or who remains out of form at best would be the antithesis of such stability and just a stupid decision!

I love that people are passionate about cricket and are desperate for Australia to succeed but I think we all need to take a deep breath. The Australian team for the 3rd test is probably already set, particularly so given Wade’s duck at Hove, and those who have been rested from this game will be there. That means those advocating the removal of Watson or Rogers (or both) are likely to be sorely disappointed come 1 August!

Cricket by request: Australia’s Opening Batsman conundrum Part 1

July 20, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , Leave a comment

Anyone who reads my twitter feed or this blog will know that I have written much about cricket and the woes of the game in Australia. I wrote earlier today about Shane Watson and that has lead to much dialogue about the opening batting position for Australia that Shane Watson currently holds. I was asked two questions that I demurred in answering until after I had thought about it. They are:

1. How regularly does Watson get past the 40th over?
2. If there is to be a replacement for Shane Watson who is it to be?

This blog will purport to answer the first question. Equally, I consider it to be unfair to just focus on the work of Watson when answering this question so I have decided to expand the terms of reference here so as to compare the form of Shane Watson in getting past the 40th over in a game with those openers who have followed the last great opening partnership from these waters: Hayden and Langer.

First though: here is the simple answer to the principal question. Shane Watson has opened the batting for Australia 49 times (including in the first innings at Lords) and in those 49 innings he has gotten past the 40th over on 11 occasions which represents a strike rate in the context of this discussion of 22.44%

That initial answer out of the way: how does this compare to either of the other openers who have followed Hayden and Langer for Australia OR the current contemporaries of Shane Watson.

Justin Langer retired in January 2007 and Matthew Hayden retired in January 2009. Since that time there are have 8 openers excluding Shane Watson used by Australia. The results of an analysis of the batting of those 8 batsmen is as follows:

Watson Blog pic

This analysis makes very interesting reading: only Simon Katich, Phil Jacques and Ed Cowan have averaged higher than Shane Watson in lasting until the magical 40 over mark.

The numbers from Shane Watson are not impressive but are not the worst of those Australia has relied upon to open the innings in recent time.

As an aside, reviewing all of the games that Australia has played since the retirements of Hayden and Langer has reaffirmed for me that P Jacques and S Katich were desperately unlucky NOT to play more cricket for Australia. The emphasis on fast scoring from the selectors has impugned the ability of our opening batsmen to grind out a start: that is the other fact that is clear from my analysis.

Look tomorrow for part 2 of this series by request.

Cricket: In defence of Shane Watson

July 20, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , 1 Comment

I enjoy the banter on social media about cricket and its players and I am a strong defender of everyone’s right to have an opinion. I have read, often with dismay, vitriol on my time line directed at one particular cricketer, Shane Watson, for some time now. After last night’s DRS fiasco I have decided that enough is enough and it is time come out swinging in defence of Watto.

Some background: Watson is from Ipswich, as am I. We went to the same school albeit he was a few years behind me. We played in the same junior club competition. We have some mates that knocked around in the same circles and way back when we knew each well enough to say g’day to.

The school connection and running in some of the same circles does not mean that I know the bloke personally and I do not claim to. What it does mean though is that I do know what Shane went through, at least anecdotally, even to get to first class cricket. I remember the news of the back stress fractures: some kids stop playing after having them once but I know Shane went through them at least twice before he was 16 and maybe more. From a young age he was targetted, as kids are when they are playing with men, for more vitriol than most are required to take in a lifetime of sport. Cricket in Ipswich was no charm school and he did not wilt.

Since he has been playing first class cricket and for his country he has had problems with injury of that there can be no doubt. Indeed, one of the main complaints of those who attack him seem to be that because he has had those injuries he is somehow weak. That hypothesis ignores the fact that where others probably would have quit, Watson has rehabbed, made himself stronger and redesigned his whole bowling action just to keep playing. Having to do that as many times as he has smacks of a person with a strong character who preserveres doesn’t it? Not of someone who is inherently weak?

It is also postulated by those who attack the most that he is selfish and not a team man. To those of you who are in the camp I pose this question: would someone who is not a team man keep coming back to bowling because the team needs him to despite the real and present danger of another injury? Is that not the epitome of being a team man? Putting his own health ahead of the needs of the team would seem to be right up there I would have thought. Similarly, resigning as team vice-captain in the wake of “homeworkgate” must also be seen from the perspective of that act’s benefit to the team rather than the act of someone, allegedly, throwing the toys out of the cot.

I can’t say I have agreed with all of his decisions: moving away from Queensland is a hard thing for any Queenslander to swallow but I can understand the premise behind it. In his position would any other first class cricketer in the country have made a different decision? Show me one who suggests that he would have and I will show you a liar.

I have no cavil with people commenting on the form of players and whether that form warrants a players place in the team. If Watson is out of form or if there is a better alternative to him being in the team then I will be at the head of the queue in making that statement. Like many of Australia’s players at the moment I think he would benefit massively from a season of Sheffield Shield cricket. That said, can anyone tell me who a better option is at the moment from the current pool of talent in Australian cricket? If you argue that the Australian cricket team would be improved by his removal from the team then you are entitled to your opinion but tell me who is around that would improve the team in his absence?

I am an unabashed fan of Shane Watson, in part because everytime he walks out with a baggy green on his head I see the pain he has gone through to be there and in equal part because he is patently in the top eleven players in the country.

If he is out of form and warrants dropping and that is your opinion you are entitled to it. If you believe he is weak, selfish, not a team man or anything else to do with assertions you have about his character then, again, you are entitled to your opinion, but you can expect me henceforth to test that opinion because such statements warrant reply in the strongest possible terms. To date I have chosen to ignore them but I can not countenance that approach any longer. If you do not like that, then use the unfollow button. If you want to have a genuine debate: then I am ready, willing and waiting.

The Ashes, Second Test Day 2: Don’t let DRS drama mask the truth

July 20, 2013 By in Shumpty Speaks Tags: , , , , , 1 Comment

It has only taken seven days of this series for many Australian fans to return to the view that Australia is well behind England and will not win back the Ashes in England. The efforts of our tenth wicket partnerships in Trent Bridge masked some of the frailties in the Australian batting lineup that ought to have be obvious to all.

Simply put: Australia’s batting was not up to standard in the the first innings and, frankly, has not been for some time. Forget the batsman who come in at number 8 through 11: it is not their job to score runs for us and in recent times they have been doing that job. This issues did not just arise in Trent Bridge but has been a fairly constant refrain through Australia’s test cricket for a number of tests now.

Last night’s efforts from Australia’s top 7 were nothing short of woeful. Did anyone really get a good delivery that lead to their wicket? Shane Watson was dismissed because another bowler exploited his most obvious technical flaw. Chris Rogers missed a full toss. Usman Khawaja had a brain snap and hit one to mid off. Phil Hughes slashed at one a foot outside off stump. Steve Smith meekly gloved a ball to short length. There was no mystery in the English bowling: they simply bowled the ball at Australia’s batsman and even when it was not in the right areas the Australian batsmen contrived a way to get themselves out.

Much has been made on social media of the use of the DRS system by Shane Watson. Australian fans need to stop whinging about their players and start looking at the real frailties in Australian cricket. Whether the use of DRS was right or wrong arguing about it masks the fact that the batting order Australia has in England and has stuck with since the retirements of Ponting and Hussey is not up to the task at test match level.

I am all for seeking to bring young players through and for trying to develop talent from within the team. That said, a massive question hovers over some of the selection decisions that were made during the Mickey Arthur era that have flowed through into this team now. I am not talking about revisiting the past here: we must stop waxing lyrical for a return of Simon Katich for example. Conversely though here are some names of players who have performed in Shield cricket that have not received an ounce of the chances that others have: D Hussey, A Voges, A Doolan, P Forrest and J Burns. I am not saying that they would have performed any differently at Lords over night but the fact that they have not received a semblance of a chance in the test team is something that must be questioned.

Australia was 9/114 in the first innings of the first test match at Trent Bridge and was dismissed for 128 at Lords on a wicket described by all as a run machine. That is simply not good enough. It is time to forget the vitriol aimed at one player about his use of DRS and focus on just how poorly our top 7 is playing. There is not much Australia can do given that they have squad to select from in England and those players must be relied upon to at least try to get the job done. Equally, perhpas the Darren Lehmann era will proceed when he has the reigns in full back in Australia with the end of the careers of some of the players who have not performed in recent times and the elevation of those who have earned their chance in Shield cricket.

Only time will tell: until then, if nothing else, last night was a jolt to the expectations that Australian fans probably needed after those expectations were elevated by the events of Trent Bridge.