The Warne Manifesto: the end of an inglorious summer for Shane or a new beginning?

The publication by Shane Warne of his widely circulated “manifesto” has led to much social media comment and both support and derision from current and former players, commentators and fans alike.  Shane Warne is a legend of the game and is entitled to his opinion about the state of Australian cricket.  He is entitled, as a public citizen, to give his opinion about everything from poker to potato chips if he so wishes.  I make no comment (save for what follows), affirmative or otherwise, about the strategies Warne suggests: plenty of others have already done so.

The question that I have been turning over in my mind though since the publication of the “manifesto” is whether its publication represents a new beginning for Shane Warne as a statesman of the game or it is simply a footnote of an inglorious summer for a fading champion.  Before answering that conundrum, it is important to consider the summer it has been for Warne.

Shane Warne’s summer of cricket started  with an attempt to lift the profile of the Big Bash League via making himself available for the Ashes and then immediately withdrawing his availability again after ticket sales went through the roof for the first Melbourne Stars fixture of the summer.  Such a transparent attempt at self promotion was followed by two overs of long hops and full tosses that lead to 40 runs being taking off his bowling in a game he so disingenuously sought to promote.

This extravaganza of self interest was followed by a mid-season break to return “home” to England to celebrate the festive season with Ms Hurley which left man pundits and fans alike scratching their heads and questioning his committment to the game.  This was particularly so given that the “other” great spinner in the competition, a bloke from Sri Lanka who holds the record for most wickets in history, didn’t see the need to return home to his family and stayed in Melbourne to play for his franchise during the same period.

Then of course we move to the “battle of Melbourne” between Warne and Marlon Samuels. Regardless of who was the instigator of this most unseemly of incidents, for Warne, in his capacity as an “elder” of the game, it could not have been a worse moment to abuse a fellow player and to act in a fashion unbecoming of a sportsman at any level.  It ought not be forgotten that in the aftermath of the “battle” Warne also displayed a lack of contrition that was as overt as it was unsurprising.  It should also be remembered that his paramour Ms Hurley saw fit to weigh in on the debate via twitter.

The penultimate act of the summer from Shane Warne came in the semi-final of the BBL: setting aside Mr Warne’s failure to read the rules of the competition this was a game in which the greatest leg spinner bowler of all time took the field and did not bowl.  A man with greater than 700 wickets in test match cricket chose not to bowl himself in a sudden death match when his team needed him the most. 

All of these factors combined leads one to the conclusion that it has been a season to forget for Shane Warne.  It should also not be forgotten that before the “Warne manifesto” was published followers of @warne888 were submitted to reading the various complaints of Warne about the state of the Australian cricket team (amongst the spruiking of his poker tournament and declaring his love for Ms Hurley) ending with the declaration that the powers that be in the game are “muppets”. 

With that statement made, the manifesto was born and that leads us back to the current day and the publication of the “Warne manifesto”.  It goes without saying that he makes some valid points.  It also goes without saying that some of his suggests are so impossible in reality as to border on lunacy.  That said, regardless of where you stand on the validity or otherwise of the statements made by Warne, the unmistakable truth is that until Shane Warne decides to stop his international globetrotting with his partner, Ms Hurley, his poker playing and appearances at celebrity golf tournaments and return to Australia and make himself available to be a selector or a coach his manifesto will be considered nothing more than the hot air it actually is.  This is because, no matter who you look at it,the “Warne Manifesto” has the look of the work of someone content to sit on the sidelines and throw stones rather than roll up his sleeves and offer real assistance.

If the “Warne manifesto” was an attempt by its author to push himself forward as a statesman of the game, the failure of the author to actually take action rather than snipe condemns it to be nothing more than a footnote of an inglorious summer for an obviously fading star of the game.  It is that inglorious summer that has the potential to tarnish Warne’s reputation for a long time to come.

I have the same fears for cricket in Australia as Shane Warne does but unlike him I am not in a position to do anything about it. The time for talk is over and the time for action is now.  Shane Warne should be given kudos for trying but he is not the emissary of change cricket in this country needs.  I hope such an emissary appears from the slipstream of Shane Warne’s attempt but I have to concede I am not hopeful.

What is the NSP doing (part 2)? Australia’s T20 Squad announcement / ODI debacle

This morning Cricket Australia’s National Selection Panel announced it’s squad for two T20 games against Sri Lanka on 26 and 28 January 2013.  The squad is:

  • George Bailey (c)
  • Ben Cutting
  • Xavier Doherty
  • James Faulkner
  • Aaron Finch
  • Ben Laughlin
  • Shaun Marsh
  • Glenn Maxwell
  • Mitchell Starc
  • Adam Voges
  • Matthew Wade
  • David Warner

There are few ommisions  from and inclusions in the team that stick out like the proverbial and warrant comment.  First let me be clear: I have no cavil with the selections of Bailey, Warner, Starc and Wade and make no comment on their lack of form or otherwise in the BBL because they either did not play in it or did not play enough for a good guide to be found.  I would have replaced Wade with T Ludeman if I had my choice but he is the incumbent and has earned  his spot.

I am delighted that Shaun Marsh has received a second opportunity having, seemingly, been in the wilderness after his test form left him and I am also delighted Messrs Finch, Faulkner and Laughlin have received call ups after an excellent BBL season.  There my delight ends.

The failure by NSP to select either of Luke Pomersbach or Ben Rohrer who, along with Shaun Marsh, were the stand out batsmen of the tournament for mine is just incomprehensible.  Rohrer’s performances for the Renegades were every bit as compelling as those of Aaron Finch and drove them to only being one game short of the final and the efforts of Luke Pomersbach were second only to those of Shaun Marsh in the run scoring takes.  In their place are Adam Voges and Glenn Maxwell.  Voges is a fine player but at nearly 34 one must question the longevity of his selection.  Maxwell is so out of form at the moment he can not make the, in must be conceded, below par Australian ODI team and is coming off a seven game stint for the Melbourne Stars where, again, he failed to take a wicket and only got past 20 once.

Surely this was an opportunity to reward an excellent BBL summer from two players who have been on the fringes for a long time with selection.  In going with an older player unlikely to have a long stint in the team and a player out fo form and out of answers yet again the NSP is sending the message that, on the one hand whilst they say they are preparing for the future they actually are not, and, on the other hand, if you are one of their “project players” it matters not what form that player is in.  These are ubundantly the wrong messages in my opinion.

Of course there is also the problem that the team that won the competition again appears to be underrepresented.  I am an unabashed Queensland (Brisbane) fan I concede however it remains incomprehensible to me that a team that wins both the Sheffield Shield and the BBL can only have one player worthy enough for selection in this nations teams in red ball cricket, ODIs and T20.  Forget the argument about whether Chris Hartley is the best wicket keeper in the country; Burns and McDermott are also stars of the future that, if the NSP is genuine in its alleged remit to develop the teams of the future, then surely they, along with the many other young players knocking on the door, should be in the frame for selection rather than seemingly forgotten. 

Innings of 170, 74 and 9/220 (off the back of our number 10 batsman) should be the wake up call that the NSP needs to look hard the top six and truly select a top six that they see representing Australia at the next World Cup in 2015.  Of the current top six can anyone genuinely see, on current form and noting age, the names Bailey, Hussey and Maxwell in that team? Surely now is the time to genuinely plan for 2015 and blood players like Finch, Khawaja, Burns and Lynn (if a spin bowling batsman is needed) with an eye on the future rather than using one day internationals a forums for centre wicket practices for the Ashes as the NSP appears to be. 

Don’t get me wrong, selecting any sort of team is a tough job.  As a fan of the game though, I crave consistency in selection and at present the messages being given by the selection panel, being the failure to select based on domestic form, the continued selection of “project players” and dropping players after a single opportunity, could be nothing further from consistent.

What is the NSP doing? The selection of allrounders is indicative of a deeper problem

It was a case of another day, another selection storm for the National Selection Panel of Cricket Australia yesterday. For those who missed it Aaron Finch was replaced by David Warner, Steve Smith was replaced by Michael Clarke and Ben Cutting replaced by Moises Henriques. Kane Richardson was also left out with Mitchell Starc again fit.

Of all of those changes the one that sticks out is the replacement of Ben Cutting with Moises Henriques. In his one opportunity Cutting came to the wicket with Australia in trouble at 6/83 and scored a solid 27 runs in partnership with Brad Haddin and then with the ball took one of the two wickets Australia took against the resurgent Sri Lankans. All things considered it has to be said that Cutting did his job and, indeed, did it admirably.

In response to this he has been replaced in the squad by Moises Henriques because, to quote John Inverarity (the chairman of selectors) “we need allrounders” and “we were looking for a seam bowling allrounder to suit the conditions at the Gabba”. The other allrounder who remains in the team is Glenn Maxwell who has remained in the team despite not taking a wicket in his first six games for Australia and barely worrying the scorers in this competition so far.

The astonishing part about all of this is that the player excluded from the allrounder hunt in the favour of Henriques is a seam bowler whose home wicket is at the Gabba and who is in the form of his career this year. That is not to say that Henriques is not in form; the short answer is that he is but surely it is incongruous to suggest that you want a bowler who is going to suit the conditions at the Gabba and then drop the Gabba based player in the team?

On the one hand Cricket Australia have selected, and continue to select, a player who is clearly a “project player” for them with an eye on the Indian tour (Inverarity admitted as much in his interview) in Maxwell whilst on the other hand they have dropped a player who did his job when asked to and despite the next game being at the ground at which he is most comfortable.

All this leads one back to a point that even 24 months would have been ridiculous to consider; viz., that the Australian one day set up is nothing more than a Petri dish into which Cricket Australia is seeking to grow players for the long term and, it seems, for future involvement in four or five day cricket. This in turn shows the folly of Cricket Australia’s focus on the Big Bash League rather than the Sheffield Shield Competition which, previously, would have been the place that “project” players would have learnt their craft rather than in international one day cricket.

This is international cricket not a centre wicket practice like Cricket Australia seems to think it is. The players punished and, no doubt, confused by the regime are those very players (save for Glenn Maxwell) that Cricket Australia should be trying to nurture: Khawaja, Smith, Finch, Cutting, Richardson are all on the precipice of international careers and yet find themselves again jettisoned. Wouldn’t you be confused?

Surely it is better for cricket in this country for the Australian team to be the best team available for selection every time it plays and for “project players” to develop through the Sheffield Shield and Ryobi competitions. If I am wrong on this and, in fact, it is better for the development of the players in this country for the remaining one day fixtures this summer to continue to be the centre wicket practices they seem to be then I will happily concede the point. Until Glenn Maxwell scores a hundred at international level or takes 4 wickets in one innings no such concession will be forthcoming.

Cricket Australia’s National Selection Panel: what are they thinking?

Today Cricket Australia announced the one day international and twenty 20 squads to play Afghanistan and Pakistan in the UAE in August and September.

The squads are:

ODI Squad

Michael Clarke, David Warner, George Bailey, Daniel Christian, Xavier Doherty, Callum Ferguson, David Hussey, Michael Hussey, Mitchell Johnson, Glenn Maxwell, Clint McKay, James Pattinson, Steve Smith, Mitchell Starc, Matthew Wade

T20 Squad

George Bailey, Shane Watson, Daniel Christian, Patrick Cummins, Xavier Doherty, Ben Hilfenhaus, Brad Hogg, David Hussey, Michael Hussey, Glenn Maxwell, Clint McKay, Mitchell Starc, Matthew Wade, David Warner, Cameron White.

Anyone following me on twitter (@shumpty77), will have seen my concerns (or maybe rants) about some of the selections made today.  Those concerns have only grown stronger throughout the day.

That said, first it must be noted that there are some obvious positives to arise in the selections made today including:

  1. The inclusion of Callum Ferguson in the ODI squad is a reward for form in domestic cricket, particularly in the last series of the Ryobi Cup.  To come back from the injuries that he has had is a credit to him.
  2. The return of Cameron White to the Twenty20 squad is a reward for his excellent form in IPL and in the Friends Lift T20 in England
  3. Daniel Christian’s elevation to the ODI squad gives the line up flexibility from one of the form players of the Australian domestic summer.  Frankly, his inclusion is righting the selection wrong that was his non-inclusion in the squad to tour England in June.

The positives out of the way, I again find myself perplexed about some of the selections made and, possibly more to the point, not made. I will deal with each in turn.

Glenn Who?

The big news story surrounding the announcement of the squads is the inclusion of Glenn Maxwell in both.  That is a good enough place to start with my concerns.  I am absolutely prepared to concede that Maxwell has been in good form with the willow in the English T20 competition and there can be no doubt that he hits a long ball.  That having been said I am not convinced there is any need for the inclusion of another offspin bowling allrounder in the squad for either form of the game.  Both squads include the name D Hussey who projects as the off spinning allrounder that makes the side.  That being the case why do we need to blood Maxwell given that he is unlikely to play either in this series or in the World T20 Championship that follows the tour.

Further, I can not understand Maxwell’s inclusion in the ODI squad on form.  In last season’s Ryobi Cup Maxwell scored some 74 runs at an average of 15 runs per innings and took 6 wickets at an average of 42 per wicket.  That can hardly be considered the form of a player pressing for selection in his national team.

The Johnson Imposition: what does a young bowler have to do?  

The selection of Mitchell Johnson continues to cause heads to shake among the cricket fans of this country.  He was taken to England and could not fight his way into the ODI team despite P Cummins returning home injured.  In his one game he bowled 7 overs, gave up 43 runs and bowled 4 wides and 2 no balls.  He is not the force that he was even two years ago and it appears that the problems he is having remain mostly between his ears.  I would have thought he would be a player that would benefit from a full season in domestic cricket in Australia to see if he gets his form back before sending him back on tour with the national team.

The corallory of this is that there are plenty of high class bowlers who performed in the 2011/12 Ryobi Cup.  A McDermott was one of the revelations of the tournament taking 16 wickets at 18.87 in seven games.  J Faulkner took 14 wickets at 29.71 as well as scoring runs.  J Haberfield took 14 wickets at 18.50.  If the one days series’ that Australia are playing between now and the Champions Trophy in June 2013 are designed to build a team for that tournament and towards the next World Cup then surely Johnson must have been left out and one of these three young bowlers given an opportunity to perform at the top level. 

The Smith conundrum: bad for balance

The batting scapegoat for the failure of the Australian team in the series in England appears to have been Peter Forrest whilst Steve Smith inexplicably survives again.  I appreciate that Forrest had an ordinary tour but so did Smith and when it became necessary to try and fix the balance of the team it was Smith that found himself on the outer.  Additionally, I just can not see him playing in any of the ODIs because a team picked from the squad as announced presents as best balanced when Smith along with Maxwell, Johnson and Ferguson are mixing the cordials. 

If a reserve batsman needed to be picked in addition to Ferguson it is obvious that Rob Quiney should have been selected in the ODI squad in the place of Smith.  He has been the form batsman in all forms of the game in Australia and could open the batting if the selectors are looking for an alternative to the Wade / Warner combination.  Opposers of this will say that Smith’s bowling is an added string to his bow that places him ahead of Quiney but both from the perspective that the balance of side is better if Quiney is included and because Smith’s bowling has been mediocre at best that argument is without substance.  

What ever happened to T Birt?

Travis Birt was the form batsman of the KFC Big Bash last summer scoring 345 runs at an average of 43.12 and a strike rate of 168.29.  He also hit some of the biggest sixes one anyone is ever likely to see.  His batting presents as the blue print of the belligerent batsman Australia has been sorely lacking in the middle order in T20 matches.  Despite being picked up by the Dehli Daredevils for IPL5 he was not selected to play a game.  The only basis I can think of for his non-selection must be that he has not recently played the short form of the day.  That or he is injured and I have not seen a report about it.  Otherwise his non-selection seems to be inexplicable.

The selection of injured players: when will we learn?

Yet again the National Selection Panel have deigned to select players who are injured in Cummins and Watson without first testing them in domestic cricket.  I am on the record as being vehemently against this and again I can not agree with the logic of selecting, particular Cummins, for these games.  They were injured badly enough to come home from England and seem to be regularly injured.  That fact seems to me to be enough to warrant easing them back into the international game through domestic cricket in Australia.

Surely it must be better for Australian cricket noting the coming test series against the South Africans and the Ashes for Cummins and Watson to be given time to heal and to get match hardened in the longer form of the game rather than participating in the T20 hit and giggle fest to come in Sri Lanka.  It would seem to me that there is everything to lose and nothing to gain by both player’s participation in this series.

Ultimately, it is apt to note that selectors have a tough job and no doubt they consider that they have got the selection of these squads correct.  I respectfully disagree.

What do you think?

Shumpty

Cricket Australia announces 2012/13 contract list: an emphasis on test cricket apparently

Today Cricket Australia announced the list of centrally contracted players for the coming summber (2012/13).  The following are those who received contracts:

Michael Clarke, Patrick Cummins, Xavier Doherty, Brad Haddin, Ryan Harris, Ben Hilfenhaus, David Hussey, Mike Hussey, Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Johnson, James Pattinson, Ricky Ponting, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, Matthew Wade, David Warner, Shane Watson.

The move to reduce the contracted player numbers to 17 players and to, based on the Argus Report, focus on test cricket is something I wholeheartedly support.  I am not sure however that the new contract list does that though.

The glaring inclusion in the list is that of Mitchell Johnson.  Based on form over at least the last 12 months of test cricket he has played and in his return to first class cricket after his toe injury he surely can not be Australia’s top 17 players available for test match selection.  On the assumption that our test team will only ever include 3 fast bowlers, I can not imagine that he is ahead of any of Cummins, Harris, Hilfenhaus, Pattinson, Siddle or Starc on form and, indeed, recent reputation.

I am also surprised that Doherty has received a contract.  Based on recent selections he is behind both Lyon and Beer in the spin bowling pecking order.  Indeed he has a bowler ahead of him based on test squad selections, in the form of Beer, who bowls in precisely the same fashion as he does.  This is a strange inclusion if test cricket is your focus.

I have made much on twitter about Cowan’s exclusion however I confess that I can see the logic in not including him based on his form to date.  Equally, I would have though that if Cricket Australia considers him important enough to the Australian set up to make him captain of the Australian A team touring England this winter, they really should have thought him within the core of Australian players who received a contract.   Could it be that the plan is for Watson to open with Warner in the Ashes?

I will be interested to see if David Hussey’s inclusion in the contract list means he is the next in line for a test match spot.  I would find it surprising if that is the case with calibre of young batsmen waiting in the wings.  Shaun Marsh seems to have done himself out of the running after his troubles in the Border-Gavasker Trophy.  That said, Peter Forrest has done everything asked of him and was in the squad for the Frank Worrell Trophy whilst Liam Davis, Tom Cooper and Bob Quiney set the Sheffield Shield alight last summer.  If our next test batsmen is supposed to come from the contract list then the selectors have missed the mark.

I should say here that I do not dispute that players in other forms of the game ought also be recognised and receive recompense for their services.  In the context however of an alleged focus on test cricket from Cricket Australia in these contracts then players who are specialist short form players seem out of place.

A final comment: the Sheffield Shield champions from last year have only managed to have one player considered in the top 17 players in the country.  If nothing else that much show that the days of the Sheffield Shield and form shown in domestic cricket being the principal basis for selection in Australia’s national squad are fast disappearing.