Mostly, this stems from England and the 2005 Ashes series.
Andrew Flintoff’s mighty frame swung freely during the 2005 series when England won back the Ashes for the first time in 16 years. Batting at six lustily, and opening the bowling pacily, he was the perfect all-round combination which gave the England team the balance they required to finally beat the Australians. Following this series loss, it became the Australian selectors mandate to find an all-rounder who could fill the same position for Australia – batting in the middle order, and providing excellent overs with the ball such that all possible options could be covered in each match. More than a mandate, it became an obsession, completely overriding the selection policy that had served the team so well for two decades, which was pick the best players in each position and allow the team to fall into place like a game of Tetris. By all means – if an Andrew Flintoff or a Keith Miller suddenly appeared on the scene then pick them. What a fillip that would be! Instead the selectors tried to manufacture someone to take on that role, and it has been an impossible task in the 12 years that have passed since that time. You can’t make an all-rounder. You need to choose players who can hold their place in the team as either one of the top six batsmen or one of the top four bowlers. The fact that Flintoff could comfortably do both, for a few years at least, was what allowed him to be selected as an all-rounder. The Australian selectors tended to get that message muddled up completely. What they have been doing since 2005 is trying to find someone who can bat a bit and bowl a bit, and insert them into the team as a lesser player. For the most part, the players who have been chosen in essence as an all-rounder have been unable to convincingly prove they deserve their place in the team as a batsman OR a bowler, and are therefore causing problems for the team on both fronts. They have neither scored enough runs as a batsman to help the top order or hold their place solely as a batsman, and in general they haven’t been bowled enough or taken enough wickets to be considered as a bowler. But because they are apparently half-arsed at both, that then qualifies them as a necessary player.
For years we had Shane Watson shoved in our faces as the team all-rounder. That is, when he hadn’t broken down and spent time out of the team every couple of months. As a kid he had shown enormous potential for his adoptive state of Tasmania, batting at three and bowling at over 140kph. He looked like the real deal, and once Flintoff had laid the platform in 2005 Watson was given a push forward, getting his first Test cap in Sydney in January 2006. Without going into the whole Watson saga, his career never lived up to the promise, and he was the major polarising factor in the all-rounder debate for the next decade.
The next real push for an all-rounder came after the break down of James Pattinson in Adelaide against South Africa in 2012, which thanks to being a bowler down on a road, allowed the Proteas to bat out the draw, surviving 148 overs in their second innings in which Faf du Plessis scored an unbeaten century on debut. Suddenly teams were being selected to cover in case one of the bowlers broke down, rather than accept that this occurrence may happen on rare occasions and cannot be covered even in the instance that a second rate all-rounder may be in the team. Once again, the selection of a player with credentials less than other players was getting a walk up start to the team on the off chance that they might be able to succeed in two spheres of the game rather than one specialist.
The players that have been considered for this position in the Australian Test team are not necessarily bad players, it’s just that they have been selected without the right form or results behind them in the hope that their ‘potential’ would be enough to help them do the job. For the most part, they have not. Apart from Watson, others to have been given a chance include Glenn Maxwell, James Faulkner, Mitchell Marsh, Steve Smith, Moises Henriques and Hilton Cartwright. The only one who could have said to have succeeded on that list is Smith, who has done so when he himself dropped his bowling and sought selection only as a batsman.
Andrew Flintoff’s mighty frame swung freely during the 2005 series when England won back the Ashes for the first time in 16 years. Batting at six lustily, and opening the bowling pacily, he was the perfect all-round combination which gave the England team the balance they required to finally beat the Australians. Following this series loss, it became the Australian selectors mandate to find an all-rounder who could fill the same position for Australia – batting in the middle order, and providing excellent overs with the ball such that all possible options could be covered in each match. More than a mandate, it became an obsession, completely overriding the selection policy that had served the team so well for two decades, which was pick the best players in each position and allow the team to fall into place like a game of Tetris. By all means – if an Andrew Flintoff or a Keith Miller suddenly appeared on the scene then pick them. What a fillip that would be! Instead the selectors tried to manufacture someone to take on that role, and it has been an impossible task in the 12 years that have passed since that time. You can’t make an all-rounder. You need to choose players who can hold their place in the team as either one of the top six batsmen or one of the top four bowlers. The fact that Flintoff could comfortably do both, for a few years at least, was what allowed him to be selected as an all-rounder. The Australian selectors tended to get that message muddled up completely. What they have been doing since 2005 is trying to find someone who can bat a bit and bowl a bit, and insert them into the team as a lesser player. For the most part, the players who have been chosen in essence as an all-rounder have been unable to convincingly prove they deserve their place in the team as a batsman OR a bowler, and are therefore causing problems for the team on both fronts. They have neither scored enough runs as a batsman to help the top order or hold their place solely as a batsman, and in general they haven’t been bowled enough or taken enough wickets to be considered as a bowler. But because they are apparently half-arsed at both, that then qualifies them as a necessary player.
For years we had Shane Watson shoved in our faces as the team all-rounder. That is, when he hadn’t broken down and spent time out of the team every couple of months. As a kid he had shown enormous potential for his adoptive state of Tasmania, batting at three and bowling at over 140kph. He looked like the real deal, and once Flintoff had laid the platform in 2005 Watson was given a push forward, getting his first Test cap in Sydney in January 2006. Without going into the whole Watson saga, his career never lived up to the promise, and he was the major polarising factor in the all-rounder debate for the next decade.
The next real push for an all-rounder came after the break down of James Pattinson in Adelaide against South Africa in 2012, which thanks to being a bowler down on a road, allowed the Proteas to bat out the draw, surviving 148 overs in their second innings in which Faf du Plessis scored an unbeaten century on debut. Suddenly teams were being selected to cover in case one of the bowlers broke down, rather than accept that this occurrence may happen on rare occasions and cannot be covered even in the instance that a second rate all-rounder may be in the team. Once again, the selection of a player with credentials less than other players was getting a walk up start to the team on the off chance that they might be able to succeed in two spheres of the game rather than one specialist.
The players that have been considered for this position in the Australian Test team are not necessarily bad players, it’s just that they have been selected without the right form or results behind them in the hope that their ‘potential’ would be enough to help them do the job. For the most part, they have not. Apart from Watson, others to have been given a chance include Glenn Maxwell, James Faulkner, Mitchell Marsh, Steve Smith, Moises Henriques and Hilton Cartwright. The only one who could have said to have succeeded on that list is Smith, who has done so when he himself dropped his bowling and sought selection only as a batsman.
You could almost weep for someone like James Hopes, who was never afforded an opportunity despite years of service in the role for Queensland. The fact that he was a bowling all-rounder was probably held against him, but if he had been given his chance he would have given everything he had, and probably been better than any of the other players mentioned.
So what becomes the selector’s thoughts on the number six position heading into this Ashes summer? Once again clouding their judgement could be England’s line up, which not only has Jonny Bairstow as keeper-batsman but two or possibly three world class all-rounders in Ben Stokes (who may or may not make our shores), Moeen Ali and Chris Woakes. Their middle-to-lower order batting is likely to be quite strong – possibly even stronger than their top order, but that is a conversation for another day. The fact that England has so many class all-rounders to choose from may once again have OUR selectors believing that we need our own all-rounder in the middle order, even if they are a very poor relation to those in the England colours. Adding to that cloud is the current injury woes of our fast bowling cartel. Mitch Starc was sent home early from India and didn’t tour Bangladesh at all. Josh Hazlewood broke down in Bangladesh and won’t be seen for a couple of weeks yet. James Pattinson is gone and out of the picture once again. And Pat Cummins has only just made it back into the team after five and a half years of injury following his first Test appearance. Just the mere possibility that one of our bowlers could break down in the middle of a Test is probably starting to give the selectors those same nightmares again. These two factors seems to point to the selectors sticking with someone who is half arsed at both batting and bowling.
If this is the case, then the same candidates will have their names mentioned once again. Both Glenn Maxwell and Hilton Cartwright played in the last Test against Bangladesh and will be freshest in the selectors’ minds. Neither has had much of a bowling workload, nor could really only be relied upon to offer the merest support in that category. Batting wise, the selectors have an obvious soft spot for Cartwright and have been ushering him into the limelight as best they can. He has appeared solid in his two Test innings against meagre opposition. Maxwell scored his first Test century on his return against India in the 3rd Test. In his seven Test innings since against India and Bangladesh, he has passed 20 four times for a highest score of 45, with one of those innings being not out when he scored the winning runs against Bangladesh. He may not have set the world on fire, but if the selectors are fair dinkum then his efforts are surely deserving of having first crack at the number six spot this summer. His style and form don’t adhere to how many people see a Test batsman. And yet he seems to finally be making strides in the right direction, and not picking him for Brisbane would appear to signal that he is surplus to requirements from now on. If he can curb his unorthodox strokes and improve his defence he can still be exactly what Australia require from a number six. Surely he deserves that chance to make the spot his own on home soil.
Not totally out of the running at this stage are Marcus Stoinis and Moises Henriques. Both bowl good medium fast seam, something that would be useful in Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. They both have solid first class records, averaging 35 with the bat, and both have batted at the crucial number three spot for their states. Still, surely the number six in the Test team must average above 40, and given that neither of these two does that in first class cricket, and their bowling doesn’t make them indispensable because of it, they need to do more to grab that spot. In the same field you can add Travis Head, who has had a terrific 12 months in the ODI team. He is a handy part time bowler when required, and his batting in the one day game has been superb. But while his average in first class cricket is improving rapidly, it is still currently only at 34.45, which would really need to keep increasing to make him a certain selection.
There are about 20 batsmen in Australia who would like to see their name front and centre in this debate, and all of them have their positives and negatives. The best stage to make your case is in the Sheffield Shield, and with three games being played before the 1st Test in Brisbane, that is where the real audition will take place. Big runs there could be the difference between watching the Ashes from prime position on the field, or on the TV at the pub with the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment