It has become de rigueur in recent days to downplay England’s achievements in winning the Ashes by describing this Australian side as the worst in history. While there is no doubt that it is nowhere near the standard of its recent predecessors this seems rather harsh – after all, it is only a few months since they really should have shared a series in India and their defeats in the year or so prior to the start of this series generally came in games where they at least got themselves into decent positions before blowing them. The fact is that England played cricket at a level that was way above what anyone expected and Australia, with a few honourable exceptions, weren’t able to deal with it.
So, where do Australia go from here? There is, unsurprisingly, popular enthusiasm for filling the side with young players, much as there has been on the regular occasions when England have slumped, but this runs contrary to the recent trend of Australian selection and is certainly no guarantee of success. What the selectors do need to consider, apart from their own positions, is what qualities are required from a side that is no longer ranked at number one and which doesn’t have the talent to dominate matches simply by turning up. At the risk of rubbing salt into the wounds they need to take a leaf out of the England selectors’ book and pick players as much on character as on talent.
The Captaincy
It should be pretty uncontroversial to say that Ricky Ponting’s tenure as captain should now be at an end. He has been a successful captain of a great side but has not, in truth, been a great captain. In this series he has tinkered constantly with the field to the detriment of his bowlers and his outburst at Melbourne was the final nail in his coffin. Australia’s problem now is who to succeed him with – Michael Clarke has long been groomed for the role, but his form has been woeful and his test captaincy hardly got off to a stellar start in Sydney. He is also said to be unpopular in the dressing room and he doesn’t immediately strike observers as the kind of tough character that Australia need now. This is the first major challenge for Hilditch and co.
The Openers
Shane Watson has done a surprisingly good job since his promotion to be a stop gap opener at Edgbaston in 2009 and he had a far better series with the bat than many of his team mates, but his poor conversion rate and tendency not to capitalise on starts suggest that he may be of more value to his side in the middle order than at the top. One of the many differences between the sides was the capacity of England’s batsmen to convert starts into big hundreds and Watson, for all of his qualities as a cricketer, shows no sign of having either the temperament or the technique to produce this sort of match-winning innings. His propensity for being involved in run outs rather counts against him as well.
This, however, is the lesser of Australia’s opening problems. Simon Katich has performed admirably since moving up the order, but even before his injury he wasn’t looking entirely comfortable. His replacement, Phillip Hughes, is clearly blessed with a tremendous eye but has been consistently exposed by England. His lack of footwork is shocking in a test opening batsman and his recent domestic record suggests that bowlers in first class cricket have got wise to his strengths and weaknesses as well. He has the talent to come again but has to tighten up his technique – the fact that he has been unable to do so thus far does not bode particularly well.
The problem for the selectors is who to bring in. Shaun Marsh, by his own admission, lacks the temperament to bat for long innings, Phil Jaques could be an option but is thirty-one and there are also questions about his technique and Mark Cosgrove, who has a decent first class record, has fallen foul of the Australian management in the past through issues of weight and fitness and remains overweight and unfit. It will be fascinating to see what they come up with.
The Middle Order
I have written elsewhere that this series should mark the end not only of Ricky Ponting’s tenure as captain but also of his test career. If we assume that this will be the case (and it is by no means a given) then the question is who will replace him.
Usman Khawaja made a promising debut at Sydney, although it is a mark of how public expectations have fallen that scores of thirty-seven and twenty-one should have been met with such rapturous acclaim. Tim Bresnan made the observation that any weaknesses will be identified and exploited pretty quickly in test cricket, but he looks to have a decent technique and a sound temperament. Batting at three is a tough assignment for a young player, but Australia will benefit from his emergence and he should stay there for the foreseeable future.
This then raises the question of who should bat below him. Michael Clarke has endured a horrible year but remains a player of high quality – it is striking that he has chosen to give up Twenty20 cricket in order to concentrate on re-discovering his game for the tests. Assuming that his back is okay then he should re-discover his form, which would be of immeasurable benefit to his side. Below him, Mike Hussey has done enough in the short term to keep his place, having played superbly at Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, but his performances at Melbourne and Sydney were more like his previous form and it remains to be seen whether the first three tests of the series were a glorious last hurrah or the start of something more significant.
Given the potential travails of the top order it is essential that a specialist batsman comes into the side at number six. Steve Smith has undoubted talent but he is not a good enough batsman or bowler yet to justify his place and his bowling would certainly benefit from time in first class cricket. This may be the time to promote Callum Ferguson to the test side – he only average thirty-five in first class cricket with a highest score of one hundred and thirty-two, but he has looked the part in one day internationals and may have the temperament to succeed. Australia’s selectors should bear in mind that players such as Michael Vaughan, Marcus Trescothick and Paul Collingwood had modest first class records but still had excellent test careers.
Wicket-keeper
Brad Haddin was one of the few Australians to emerge from the series with any integrity, but even so his days may be numbered. At thirty-three he is no spring chicken and the fact that he has been omitted from Australia’s Twenty20 squad may be a hint as to which way the selectors are thinking. His problem is that, although he batted well, his keeping remains patchy and there is a strong case for saying that Tim Paine is both a better keeper and a better batsman. There may also be thoughts in the selectors’ minds that Paine is a possible future captain.
Spinners
Although it is difficult to imagine his selection making much difference to the outcome of the series, the omission of Nathan Hauritz didn’t help Australia, since his is not only the best spinner available to them but also would have bolstered a fragile tail. Given that his omission seems to have been the result of a falling-out with Ricky Ponting then he may be back before long, and has been included in Australia’s one day squad, but the selectors should also be looking hard at Steve O’Keefe, another decent spinner who can also bat. It’s possible that Michael Beer may have played his one and only test match at Sydney.
Fast Bowlers
Perhaps the biggest disappointment of the series was the performance of Australia’s much vaunted pace bowlers. Damien Fleming was asked before the series which side had the better attack and he replied ‘Australia by far’ but, Perth aside, they were undisciplined and lacked penetration.
Part of their problem is the lack of a true leader of the attack. Mitchell Johnson has been groomed for the role but lacks the control, consistency and mental strength required. Ryan Harris, who bowled well in his three tests, might be a contender, but his body and age may prevent him from playing much more, if any, test cricket. Peter Siddle tried his heart out and was, at times, unplayable, but he too lacked consistency: he took two six wicket hauls but only two other wickets in the series. Ben Hilfenhaus, meanwhile, seemed to have gone backwards – he kept the runs down but seldom looked like taking wickets. They weren’t helped by the lack of fitness of Doug Bollinger, who bowled exceptionally well last winter, but even he probably isn’t an attack leader.
The questions moving forward, then, are what to do with Mitchell Johnson and when to start blooding the promising youngsters. I suspect that they will persist with Mitch, preferring to focus on his bowling at Perth rather than his performances elsewhere. If they do then it will truly be a triumph of hope over experience. They will also want to start looking at the younger players such as James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc, but will be wary of throwing them in too soon for fear that they will sink rather than swim.
There is, then, much for Cricket Australia to ponder. The concern is that, in their public pronouncements at least, they don’t seem to think that there is much wrong, but it seems to the outsider that the talent pool is fairly shallow. It is interesting that Picky Ponting has emphasised the need to review the role of domestic cricket in producing international cricketers because the conveyor belt of talent might not have lurched to a standstill but it is certainly moving rather more slowly than was the case. This is a true test of Australian cricket: it will be fascinating to see how they respond.
No comments:
Post a Comment