England's Allround Talent Has Them Primed for Ashes Victory

Running the rule over the 14 man squad England has chosen for the 1st Ashes Test this Thursday is an interesting task. Compared to the ruminations over what the final XI will be for the Australians when they front up for the toss on Thursday evening, England has such an abundance of options that their one glaring weakness is something that they should really be able to overcome with some ease. 

England has had a revolving door when it comes to the opening batting for years. As has been mentioned a thousand times, they have spent seven years trying to find someone to replace Andrew Strauss as Alistair Cook’s opening partner at the top of the order, and now Cook has retired they are STILL trying to find someone! Now they have to find two who can make a batting partnership that will do the job for them, and they don’t look to be any closer than they have been. They have three options to fill the two places, assuming they are too frozen in fright to consider moving any of their other batting options into the role. Those three are Joe Denly, Rory Burns and Jason Roy. Denly looks compact but without form behind him. Burns has a technique that looks as though he is trying to bat using the edge of the bat as the face and looks a candidate for caught behind. Roy has shown his prowess in the one-day format on flat tracks and straight deliveries, but doesn’t look technically capable against the ball that moves and with more than one slip fieldsman. Despite all this England look likely to stick with Burns and Roy, and they will be hoping that Roy can give them the kind of start he has in the one-day game while Burns holds his ground and nudges the ball around. If they both achieve this then they will have done their job. 

He may have tried to avoid batting at three in the Test team, but in terms of team balance there looks to be no alternative to Joe Root stepping up to the platform this series. He is the best credentialled batsman in the team, and if he wants to regain the Ashes he needs to lead from the front. This will allow his foot soldiers to fall into line behind him – Jonny Bairstow at four, Ben Stokes at five, Jos Buttler at six and Moeen Ali at seven. Perhaps in many minds these batsmen all have to prove themselves at Test level like they have at ODI level, but they all have the ability to do so. Certainly, England’s five and six look a lot more dangerous than Australia’s. 

With both Stokes and Moeen in the top seven, England now has the opportunity to go for the kill with the ball with a four-pronged pace attack. No doubt both James Anderson and Stuart Broad will be chosen as long as they are fit. Chris Woakes should also be a walk-up start, adding another seam option as well as lengthening the batting line up further. That would leave only one place remaining for the three other aspirants. Olly Stone looks to be the drinks waiter given the quality of those bowlers in front of him, which would leave a choice between the incumbent all-round abilities of Sam Curran or the pace talismanic ability of Jofra Archer. You would expect they would stick with Curran if for no other reason than he seems to score 30+ runs every time he comes to the crease but it is by no means absolute. Indeed, if they chose to use Root’s off spin capabilities they could even leave Moeen out of the side, and play Woakes at seven, Curran at eight and Archer at nine and probably score just as many runs through those three positions in the order. 

England may not be as proven in the Test arena as they are elsewhere, but they have quality batsmen and bowlers, and have not lost a home Ashes series since 2001. Australia has struggled since the last Ashes series in 2017/18 and are nowhere near as settled in team make up as the home team. If England are not firm favourites in this series then there is a real problem in their mindset, which would only suit Australia. The stumble against Ireland aside, England look the team to beat.

Misplaced Loyalty Betrays Confused Selection Process

“Excuse me Mr Peters, your soapbox is ready”

You know what, you’ve all read all of this before. You know what I’m going to say. I could post links to various other articles where I have gone off my rocker about our national selectors. Not just about those that they have selected and those they have ignored, but in the way they have made those selections, where the method has betrayed exactly what their real motivation is. And though they will deny it until the cows come home, there truly is no other logical explanation for what they have done.

Yes, once again we have seen at least two selections made that look suspiciously like they are because they are from a certain coach’s home state, and the loyalty that should have been shown to players who had won the team the last Test series at the end of a dismal summer was instead shown to two players who are perhaps least deserving of it.

Listing the ordinary hand shown to Joe Burns over the past three years or so is like writing a Greek tragedy. Started his Test career on fire but then made the scapegoat three times. He was dropped after a slight wavering in form, and then brought back for the fateful Hobart Test against South Africa when Shaun Marsh was injured. Australia was wiped, and so were half a dozen players including Joe Burns who had had only one Test to re-establish himself. It is widely seen that this Test is what eventually led to the Newlands debacle, which led to Joe’s next Test appearance. Despite a solid performance he was then overlooked again for the next tour to Pakistan, before finally getting another chance against Sri Lanka in what felt like a situation that the selectors just shrugged their shoulders as if they had no ideas left NOT to pick him. He responded with 180 in the second Test when Australia was reeling at 3/23. His reward? Thanks Joe, but we’ve got our favourite back now, so take a seat at the back.

I could write about this for another 2000 words but it will not decrease my anger and frustration at the selection process. Joe Burns deserves the loyalty of the selectors for putting up with the way they have treated him, and then delivering to help save and eventually help win a Test for Australia. Cameron Bancroft has been a part of embarrassing Australian cricket across the globe, and while it is completely correct to forgive and allow contrition, on the level of which player deserves to be given more leeway at the selection table, Burns has Bancroft in spades. I don’t care about what Trevor Hohns has said, this is a disgraceful selection decision again. It is beyond belief that someone who has again done all that is asked of him and scored big runs can be discarded so recklessly. For this alone, once again I guess, I believe the whole panel should be sacked or stand down or just eradicated. This is Simon Katich all over again.

As if that isn’t bad enough, yet again we have been stuck with a bloody Marsh in the touring squad. This is just ridiculous, but what is more ridiculous is the way that the selectors have stuffed up the balance of the squad to squeeze him in. They eventually decided on a squad of 17, which in all logic would include two keepers and two spin bowlers for balance and cover in case anything goes wrong. But what do the selectors do instead? Well, they choose Bancroft and then Matthew Wade (finally forced to bow to their own decree that scoring thousands of runs is the way into the team, but having ignored that for some time in Wade’s case), and decide that these two can cover the wicket-keeping role should anything befall Tim Paine, and so leave out the generally regarded next Australian Test keeper in Alex Carey. They also decide to only choose one spinner in Nathan Lyon and deciding that Marnus Labuschagne can be cover if a second spinner is required. So we have part-time options as cover for two major positions in wicket-keeper and spinner, which opens up a spot.... for Mitchell freaking Marsh. WHY?!?!?! What the hell has he actually done to get a spot in this squad?!?! He isn’t good enough to be chosen as a batsman – there are already eight others in this squad. He isn’t good enough to be picked as a pace bowler – there are already SIX others in this squad, and that doesn’t include Jackson Bird who tore apart the Shield competition last season and has done the same in England over the last month. So how the hell does he make this team?!?! It is a bloody travesty. If he is chosen in the first XI at any stage, he actually weakens the team from any other combination. This obsession with “all-rounders” is destroying the selection process of the Australian cricket team. Once again, this selection comes down to selectors favourites getting the nod based on ‘potential’ and being a ‘good bloke’ rather than performance and raw numbers.

Oh, and one more before I step down. How can we possibly have a 17 player squad, and only one spinner. I know they are going to play Lyon come what may in every Test, no matter what, but what if he does a Glenn McGrath and rolls his ankle half an hour before play? Do we rely on Labuschagne as the specialist spin option? Just play four quicks? Pick Marsh to bat at eight and bowl five overs? This is so short-sighted. Jon Holland may not look threatening but he has a good first class record and would not let the team down if he was needed. By picking six fast bowlers plus bloody Mitch Marsh, there are just too many fast bowling options, and at least one if not two of them are going to be twiddling their thumbs for two months without ever looking like getting a game. Why not at least have a spin option there doing that, just in case?

I know selections are difficult, but for this selection panel it comes across as their most difficult decisions are coming up with viable excuses as to why they have chosen their favourites at the expense of players who are more deserving of being chosen based on every other factor. Joe Burns and Kurtis Patterson scored centuries in the last Test Australia played, and now can’t even make the squad? Jackson Bird topped Shield averages, and yet even when SEVEN pace bowlers are chosen in the squad, he can’t get in?! Honestly... this does my bloody head in.

Anyway. You all knew this was coming. Thanks for putting up with my ranting once again.

You can put this soap box back in storage for a few days son.

Logic Outweighs Partisan Selections if Ashes are to be Retained

Being a selector is not an easy job. Anyone who has done it knows that no matter who you choose in a team or a squad, there will be just as many people howling you down than praising you. Your judgement call on a player will just as likely be seen as biased or uninformed by those who think the player you have chosen is a talentless hack. Much of this will come to pass again over the coming days, when the Australian selectors first choose their Ashes squad for the next two months, and then a few days later choose their eleven to play the 1st Test against England. There is every chance I will be one of the pack howling.

Looking at the cases for all of the players in line for selection objectively, the choices look to be mostly obvious. Much will depend on what balance the selection panel feel is necessary for the coming weeks – and that is the real key. Balance. 

Four opening batsmen are looking to find a way into three positions in the squad. David Warner looks to be an automatic re-inclusion, leaving three fitting in to two positions – the two incumbents in Marcus Harris and Joe Burns, and their predecessor Cameron Bancroft. Bancroft has made a good fist of his game since he returned to first class cricket in January and adds depth to the position within the Australian cricket platform. However, to be fair, he has not done enough to deserve a spot in front of either of the other two contenders. Harris may have tailed off at the end of the Test summer, but his rollicking Shield form to complete the Australian summer should be enough to suggest he deserves to be stuck with, while Burns and his double hundred in Canberra against Sri Lanka cannot be ignored. It would (again, unfortunately) send the wrong message to all Australian cricketers if he was overlooked. Lock in Warner, Harris and Burns. 

Usman Khawaja and Steve Smith look to be the natural three and four in the batting, though pressure will be on both. Since his marathon effort with the bat to save Australia in the UAE, Khawaja has struggled to score the runs he and Australia need. If not for the gift century that Tim Paine allowed him in the second innings against Sri Lanka in Canberra it would have been a barren summer in a season where he was required to stand up and lead with the bat. Australia cannot retain the Ashes if Khawaja does not perform at number three. It may not be understating the importance of his role in this series to suggest that his future in the Test team relies on him doing well in this series, injury or not. Smith is now, once again, the lynchpin. How much the past 15 months has affected his ability to blunt and then dominate bowling attacks over five days will soon be known. The confidence of the team will surge or stagnate depending on just how Steve Smith bats. An argument can still be made that number three is his best position, but the batting looks stronger with him at four as long as Khawaja comes to the party. 

Travis Head earns and retains his place after a breakthrough summer at home. One suspects his technique will be put under enormous pressure by the English bowling attack this series, and we will have a better idea of just how good a player he is by the conclusion of the Ashes. 

Two more batsmen need to be chosen, and how the selectors go here will be of interest. If form is to be the guide, then those two selections become fairly easy. Matthew Wade has dominated all three forms of the game at domestic level for over 18 months. In 2019 in first class cricket he has 566 runs at an average of 62.89 with two centuries and three half-centuries. Marnus Labuschagne may not have had the best home summer with the bat despite playing the final three Tests, but his County form has been outstanding. It does need to be looked at through honest eyes, as his 1114 runs at an average of 65.52 with five centuries and five half-centuries is in the 2nd Division competition, where you suspect the bowling would be less dominant than in the higher division. He has still scored those runs in English conditions in match situations which leaves him in the best position possible to mount a case.

The challengers have less to fall back on. Kurtis Patterson is the incumbent number six and scored his maiden century in that run fest in Canberra against Sri Lanka, but his first-class form since then is disconcerting. 236 runs at an average of 21.45 with one half century is not keeping his name above those with runs on the board. Will Pucovski has been given some great experience in having been around the Test squad at home and this tour with the Australia A team. In 2019 he has 351 first class runs at an average of 35.10, with one century and one half-century. All of this is invaluable for his development. While it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he will be selected, the most likely scenario is that he is encouraged to return home and prepare for a big 2019/20 season, where his chance for Test selection is likely to eventuate.

The spectre of Mitchell Marsh will rise again, especially as the selection panel has an obvious soft spot for him. Once again though, the figures do not stack up to justify his selection in any form. In 2019 he has scored 267 runs at 33.38 and taken nine wickets at 22.89 in four first class matches. That is nowhere near enough to justify leaving out one of the other eight batsmen I have nominated here to squeeze him in. He hasn’t done enough to be considered as a batsman, nor as a bowler. He certainly on that count cannot be considered as an all-rounder. In that regard Labuschagne has him covered anyway, having taken 19 wickets at 38.10 in County cricket. On form alone, Labuschagne gets in the squad in front of Marsh.

The fast bowling cartel will have its chance to shine in this series, and in all honesty they must if the Ashes are to be retained. Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood will be joined by the fit and firing James Pattinson in a massive boost for this tour. If all things were equal they would be joined by Jhye Richardson as the fifth prong of the attack, but his shoulder injury is likely to have put paid to that. Instead the final pace position falls to between the four remaining candidates, all of whom would do a good job if given the chance. Both Michael Neser and Chris Tremain have been excellent in first class cricket in recent seasons and have suffered from having such quality bowlers in front of them for such an extended period. Here once again they are likely to miss out, as the final place becomes a shootout between Jackson Bird and Peter Siddle, who have both played in Tests in the past 18 months.

Bird in 2019 has taken 31 wickets at 21.78, having been in the top two in the Shield aggregates last summer, while Siddle in the County season has taken 27 wickets at 18.96. Bird’s ineffectiveness in Australia during the last Ashes series – on unfortunate unhelpful surfaces it must be said – is likely to be held against him. Siddle, the “People’s Champ”, has been kept in the Test squad all summer which is as good an indication that the selectors think he is the man for the job. He should have played more in 2015, and you would suspect the selectors won’t make the same mistake this time around.

Nathan Lyon may be the only likely frontline spinner used in the Test series given the firepower the team has with the ball, but all bases need to be covered, which means Jon Holland should be selected in the squad. As a rounded and balanced squad, there is a need for two specialist spinners without having to rely on Labuschagne’s part-timers if a real turner is rolled out to quell the Australian pace attack.

That makes 16, and that might be a number the selectors sit on, but it would require having Matthew Wade as the reserve keeper should anything untoward happen to Tim Paine. Given that Wade has given up the gloves to become a batsman, and Alex Carey is now regarded as the next long-term keeper in Australia, then it seems petty not to have him in the squad to fulfil that role. Let Wade concentrate on his role in the team and not be burdened with a role he has already accepted he won’t be offered again, and let Carey be a part of the squad that he will likely eventually become a major part of.

These to me look like the logical decisions that need to be made to have the best squad with the best form behind them. There are always players you would like to squeeze into a squad like this, but that’s not always possible. Someone like Kurtis Patterson would feel very unfortunate not to be included, but the form of those here makes it difficult to look past them. I also feel for Chris Tremain who has a body of three seasons of brilliant results behind him, and if given the chance would absolutely do a sterling job, and yet it is hard to go past the five fast bowlers selected here.

Can they retain the Ashes? If they perform to anywhere near their best, then yes. But our batsmen have to make runs. 250-300 scores will not be enough. Everyone has to contribute or we are in for a long couple of months.

My squad: Tim Paine (c & wk), Pat Cummins (vc), David Warner, Marcus Harris, Joe Burns, Usman Khawaja, Steve Smith, Travis Head, Matthew Wade, Marnus Labuschagne, Alex Carey (res wk), Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, James Pattinson, Peter Siddle, Nathan Lyon, Jon Holland.

Selectors Favourites in Line for Ashes Selection

Whatever may be seen as the reasoning behind the trial match between two Australian XI’s beginning tonight in England, you can be fairly certain that no matter what the rhetoric is that comes over the next few days, the Australian selectors already know who they are going to choose in their Ashes squad. What may be being referred to as a final trial match for all participants is really just a high level centre wicket practice for the ones who will be named in that squad come the weekend. Some don’t like that idea, but given the valueless third XI level teams the English Counties usually dish up as opposition to touring teams looking to hone their skills in the build up to a Test series, this appears as good an idea as any to try and get some decent practice in before the 1st Test begins in nine days time.

“What do you mean the team has already been picked?!” Well, I mean exactly that. There is very little that can happen in this match that is going to create any last-minute adjustments to the team that the selectors will already have in their heads. They know who they are going to choose, and their biggest decision will be whether they are going to keep 16 players in the squad or 17.

I’ll tell you one thing though – their greatest hopes for this match is not that certain players on the ‘fringe’ score runs or take wickets. They will more likely be hoping that those players fail to make an impression so that the players they WANT to choose can be done so with less media attention.

What?! Surely not! That can’t be the way the selectors are thinking! Oh, don’t be so sure. The selectors have their favourites, the players they want to shoehorn back into the team as soon as possible come what may, and they have players who (unfortunately for the selectors) have met every criteria that they have set out for them to be picked in the Test team… but they just don’t want them as a part of it. Unfair assessment? I’m sure they would think so if they ever read the stuff I write, but I think I’m close to the mark.

For instance, they would prefer to see Joe Burns, Matthew Wade and Jackson Bird not do so well over the next few days. Probably also Kurtis Patterson. Not because they want them to fail, but it will look a lot better for them when they don’t name them in the squad on the weekend. Because the selectors have already shown they don’t want to pick them.

Burns was ignored despite great Shield form for the best part of 18 months, given one Test in South Africa after the Newlands fiasco, then ignored for series against Pakistan and India, before getting a recall against Sri Lanka. Despite his double century in Canberra, the selectors are not sold on his defence and believe he isn’t the best option at the top of the order. Besides, they have Warner back now, along with his mirror image in Marcus Harris. You can also sense that their preferred back up opener is Cameron Bancroft, especially through the loyalty of the coach. For this to happen, Burns would have to miss out.

Wade was left out against England 18 months ago for almost every reason poor form can offer, but you cannot deny that in the words of the doctrine “score runs and you will be considered” he has done everything in his power to be selected again. He has dominated with the bat in every form of the game at domestic level, and in every chance he has had on the A tour. You can argue about the quality of the bowlers he has faced in England, but at home he has scored runs against every bowler except the Test attack. To be honest it has become slightly embarrassing that someone in such form cannot get a crack at the top level again. And this is where the selectors are in a bind, because if he scores big runs again over the next few days he cannot possibly be left out of the squad. Thus why the selectors desperately need him to fail, because they have shown they really do not want to pick him.

Bird too has had recent Test opportunities without being able to take big wicket hauls, albeit his last few appearances have been on flatbed concrete wickets, such as the MCG wicket against England 8 months ago. Still, he again topped the Shield aggregates with the ball and has done nothing wrong on this A tour. However, he too has players in front of him on favouritism, and if he gets wickets in this match he will force the selectors hand. Unfortunately, he too looks as though he is on a hiding to nothing.

Why so? Well, Bancroft I’ve already mentioned as a selectors favourite, one primed to be chosen simply because he fits what they want rather than on sheer weight of runs and performance. At a pinch he can also fill in as wicket-keeper should they decide not to include Alex Carey as a back up in only taking 16 men in the squad. Mitchell Marsh is another who has done practically nothing when it comes to scoring mountains of runs or taking bags of wickets, and yet here he is again within touching distance of a squad selection. And Peter Siddle has spent the last twelve months as 12th man in the Test squad, purely to ensure his name is still front and centre in the public’s eyes for when they can name him in this Ashes squad.

Is this a fair assessment of what the selectors are thinking? Even from the outside there looks to be eleven certainties in the squad - David Warner, Marcus Harris, Steve Smith, Usman Khawaja (assuming he recovers from injury), Travis Head, Tim Paine, Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins, Nathan Lyon, Josh Hazlewood (also assuming he overcomes injury) and James Pattinson. That probably leaves three batting and two bowling spots remaining, with Carey as 2nd keeper only an option if they choose 17 in the squad.

National selections have concerned me for awhile – regular readers of my tripe will already know this. It worries me that someone like Joe Burns, who was overlooked for so long despite runs on the board, and who scored a double century in his last Test, is still not a certain selection in the squad let alone the eleven for the 1st Test. It worries me that Kurtis Patterson scored an excellent Test century and showed great poise in his first two Tests and yet may also miss the squad. It worries me most that once again we may go down the path of choosing a spare parts cricketer under the premise of being an ‘all-rounder’ when better qualified batsmen will be cast aside to allow the selection of a less qualified player.

Perhaps I am being paranoid, and in a few days we will know whether or not any of this comes to pass. It will be interesting to see the results of this match, and whether the performances within do actually affect selection policy. I stand prepared to be proven wrong. But so help me… if Mitchell Marsh gets chosen in this god-damned Ashes squad…AAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

World Cup 2023: Candidates Line Up For Next Australian Dynasty

Depending on your view of the past 18 months, Australia either failed to come to the party in the final stages of their defence of the World Cup, or they performed well in reaching the finals stage of the competition when six months earlier their chances of doing so looked remote. Having now come out the other side of that vortex, it is time to project forward four years and begin to assemble a squad that can make a fist of trying to wrest back that trophy. How that can be achieved with the current schedule will be make interesting viewing.

A lot of things can happen over four years, and even the way the game is played can change in that time. The balance of a squad has to be measured accordingly, and selections made in such a way that the team builds upwards throughout that period much as England was able to do, and not rise and fall in momentum.

This time around Australia had plenty of players in their squad who were also in the winning squad from 2015. Aaron Finch, Steve Smith, David Warner, Glenn Maxwell and Mitchell Starc all played in the 2015 final, while Pat Cummins was in the squad. It is quite possible all six could again feature in 2023, though it may be a stretch. Finch will be 36 years of age by then and Maxwell 34, and while there are others of a similar age here that may well make 2023 it feels unlikely these two will be a part of the future plans beyond the next couple of years. That may well end up being incorrect, but does anyone really feel at this stage that those two will be in the setup in four years time? 

Dave Warner and Steve Smith look the likeliest to still be leading the batting come 2023. Like Finch and Maxwell, Warner will be 36 and Smith 34 by then, but having lost a year of their cricket lives you would expect they will extend themselves for as long as possible. Both will no doubt continue to ply their trade in the IPL over that time, which will set them up for an Indian based World Cup nicely. Even now you can see Warner using it as his drive, as a possible way to finish his international cricket career, lifting the World Cup in 2023 as his final moment in Australian colours. Smith too could have plenty of years left if his desire remains, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he could once again be captain of Australia by the time that World Cup comes around. Stranger things have happened. 

Australia desperately needs to find a leg spinner of note, one who rips the ball and has the variations required of the craft. Smith and Alex Carey both handled Adil Rashid with aplomb in the semi-final against England because they were set by the time he was brought into the attack. Once a new batsman reached the crease though it was a different story. Unset batsmen facing leg spin are often uncomfortable and cautious. It is why Mujeeb ur Rahman does so well for Afghanistan opening the bowling, because he has two batsmen not yet set, trying to read his variations. Spinners did not dominate this World Cup as was perhaps thought they would, but Rashid’s three wickets in that semi against Australia were just as important as the initial three wickets from Woakes and Archer. 

I can’t say I know what the Australian selectors have in mind for the next 12 months. Australia has only nine ODI’s scheduled in that time – three in India in January, three in South Africa in February and three vs New Zealand in March - as they concentrate on the T20 World Cup to be held in Australia in 2020. These will also be the last ODI’s played before the commencement of the new World Cup Super League, where every match played will count as a qualification to the World Cup tournament. Once that begins in May 2020 it will make it much more difficult to blood young players for the sake of experience. With this in mind, the upcoming nine ODI’s may be a good place to do so.

The initial teams are likely to be an assumed basis of Finch, Warner, Smith and Carey in the top order, along with Starc, Cummins and Jhye Richardson as the fast bowling attack. And yes, from this you can safely assume I am suggesting that Usman Khawaja, Shaun Marsh, Maxwell and Marcus Stoinis will no longer be automatic selections. Neither will Nathan Coulter-Nile, Jason Behrendorff, Kane Richardson, Nathan Lyon or Adam Zampa in the bowling staff. Late recruit Peter Handscomb has done himself no favours, though fellow late addition Matthew Wade may get his chance again. That’s not to say that none of them will ever be selected again. Indeed, many will likely get further chances in this initial time frame. However, if we are to look at building a team that can take us to the next World Cup then we will need to look to the youth of Australia and hope that they can come good. 

What follows is a short list of potential candidates I would like to see come into this team in the next couple of years, given that their form is good enough. It should not be considered my “Shane Warne List”, where I will name a dozen players and then claim to be a genius if one of them comes good. These are just the players that I have seen enough of to think they may have something to offer down the track. 

The batting talent coming through is exciting enough and hopefully with the right kind of guidance at state level and from selectors they will make a good fist of any chance they get. At the top of that list is Will Pucovski who has shown he is up to the challenge of playing at international level. He has played only 8 List A one day games, scoring a half century and a century on the recent Australia A tour of England, but his pedigree is impeccable and it is only a matter of time before he gets his chance. Fellow alumni Jason Sangha has just completed his first full season in State cricket and also shows the promise required. The figures don’t show it yet but he is a work in progress, someone who given the chance to mature leading up to the next World Cup should be someone who will be figuring in the mix at that time. Two even greener prospects are Sangha’s former Under 19 teammates, Max Bryant and Jack Edwards. Both hit the ball hard and have a full array of strokes and are exciting to watch. 13 matches with three half centuries in ODD matches (most with the Cricket Australia XI), along with some scintillating strokeplay in the BBL makes Bryant one to keep in mind, while Edwards scored a century in both the one day competition and the Sheffield Shield last season to show he can play in both forms of the game. While Pucovski is well and truly credentialled to step up to international level, the other three are still a ways short of that, but over the next two years their progress will be worth watching, and hopefully to the point where they are able to step up to stake a claim to a position in the one day outfit. 

Four other batsmen have made cases for further investigation. Ben McDermott was in the top three batsmen in last summer’s domestic one day competition, has also shown some great power hitting in the BBL and has been given his chance in the Australian T20 team last year. His biggest problem so far has been trying to work out which gear he should be in at what time. Jake Weatherald also has good credentials at the top of the order with four centuries and an average of 46 in one day domestic cricket with a strike rate above 100. Both these two are also excellent in the field. Add to these the two Western Australians, Josh Philippe and Josh Inglis. Philippe has three half centuries in six domestic one day games, as well as some eye catching batting in the BBL, while Inglis has shown the same kind of daring and bravado at the top of the order. Perhaps none of these four are on anyone’s radar at the moment, but they have all shown glimpses of what they could become in the future at stages during the past two seasons. How they develop over the next two seasons will be how they are judged, and if they continue their improvement on the scale they have they will be right in the mix at that time. 

This is not to exclude at least three other batsmen who have already had a taste of the ODI team and will no doubt be under consideration once again. D’Arcy Short was considered unlucky by many not to be in England for this World Cup, and there is little doubt he will be back in calculations again if he can continue that form. He must show it in all forms of the game though if he wants to make a real impression. Ashton Turner is another who will surely get a good chance in the canary yellow with his devastating batting at the end of the innings along with his handy off-breaks. Off season surgery should have him firing and ready to go come October. The other is Travis Head, who had been in the team for three years leading up to this season before falling out of favour at the last moment. With his increased responsibility now as a Test batsman and vice-captain he surely deserves a chance to regain his spot in the ODI team as well. 

The bowling troupe will be an interesting call given the six or seven fast bowling candidates already in the queue. How many of those are able to keep themselves in the equation over the coming four years will be interesting. There are certainly others on the horizon who look to have something to contribute, and if they are given a chance to showcase their wares at the highest level they may well become a piece of that 2023 picture. Mark Steketee has good height and pace and has shown himself to be a slippery proposition. On hard wickets he looks to be someone who could do a good job with the ball. Riley Meredith was a standout last season in the BBL, with his pace an eye-catching feature. He has some development still in him to get to the next level but you can’t manufacture pace so it is something he has in his favour. This is also true of Cameron Green from Western Australia. He has only just turned 20 years of age and a couple of his spells last summer made pundits sit up and take notice. An easy action and good pace shows he is one to keep an eye on. 

One more to consider is New South Wales allrounder Daniel Sams. It looks as though we could once again have some flexibility in the batting line up with Alex Carey capable of batting in the top six on merit, which would mean that the ‘allrounder’ in the team doesn’t have to be a top six batsman. Someone like Daniel Sams could be a perfect slot as a hard-hitting option at number seven as he played for his state last season and then bowling fast-medium left arm, like James Faulkner did in 2015. He averaged 38 with the bat and 22 with the ball in the one day domestic competition last season. He might be an option with more experience under his belt. 

Our spin bowling options appear light on the ground once again, as the selectors still appear baffled as to who to choose and in what circumstances. Both Zampa and Lyon have spent more time out of the team than in it, with no guarantee that will change. If they are considered as superfluous to future calculations the selectors will have to look hard at what they want to do.

Mitch Swepson has been on the periphery for a couple of seasons now, and perhaps it is time for him to get his chance. His raw figures are not something that would push his cause, but he has all the tools a leg-spinner needs, and his ability to be a game changer has come through in recent times. If he is to be given a chance to show what he’s got, maybe that time has come. There is also the son of the great Abdul Qadir, Usman Qadir who wants to qualify to play for Australia. He started last season well before it looked like batsmen had begun to work him out, but he too has the deliveries and the variation to be a danger. Lloyd Pope went from England Under 19 wrecker to Shield seven-wicket hero in a dream period last summer, before hitting the hurdle as batsmen stopped giving their wickets away. It is not beyond his ability to be a part of 2023 squad especially given that tournament is in India, but he will need to wring every ounce of game time between now and then to get to that point. If he is given the time to develop without pressure on him to succeed immediately he will be a good one down the track. 

An outsider to consider is New South Wales and Sydney Thunder off spinner Chris Green. He is currently plying his trade primarily in the T20 leagues around the world, where he is seen as an economy solution – his T20 economy rate is 6.79 which is exceptional. His problem has been in trying to get a game in front of Lyon and Steve O’Keefe for his state. If he was to find a way to get consistent game time as an economic spinner that held up an end in the one day game, he could be an outside option in four years time. 

Will many – or any – of these players be around our national team when it comes time to choose our squad for the 2023 World Cup? I don’t know, but I’d like to think so. In order to move on from this campaign and prepare ourselves for the next, we need to move away from the players who won’t be around in four years time, and find the players that will be. It does not require a wholesale change of players from the outset, and will require a deft touch in introducing new players within the team dynamic without affecting the ability of the team to keep winning where necessary. With the changing cricket landscape, and having to put up with England claiming the title of “World Champions” for almost four years, we need to ensure that doesn’t continue any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Failure of Laws No Match for England's Triumph

Having had a couple of days to let the whole World Cup final and result sink in, and allow all of the opinions sink in, here is a sample of my thoughts on the whole proceedings.

How is any game of cricket decided on the number of boundaries hit? Let alone allowing a World Cup Final to be decided by such a method? Weeks before the start of the tournament myself and others discussed the rules that had been put in place. Rules such as no spare days for preliminary games in the case of rain which we knew would come back to bite some team hard, and that if the Final was washed out both teams would share the trophy. I can assure you we all read those rules, and when we came across the rule that allowed the final to be decided by the number of boundaries hit in the match if it had first finished in a tie, and then remained a tie after the super over, our reaction was exactly this - “there’s no way this will ever happen, but can you imagine what a shit result that would be if it ever did happen?!” So, if we had thought then that it was a rubbish rule, how was it allowed to be a part of the playing conditions? How did anyone who created those rules think that that would be a fair way to decide a six week tournament? Did they actually think about how it would feel to lose a World Cup final under those circumstances? Did they put themselves in that position and think ‘hmmm, no this would not work’? Obviously, not.

The Soccer World Cup does not award the trophy to the team that concedes the least number of corners. The Rugby Union World Cup does not award the trophy to the team that scores the most tries. Wimbledon was not decided by the least number of double faults served. Until recent times rugby league and Australian rules had full replays if scores were level at full time. Major League baseball continues to play until there is a winner, one game in last year’s World Series going to the 18th innings.

Everyone knew the rules going into the game, and going into that final ball of the Super Over. The knowledge of the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ was genuine as a result. In many ways it is the same feeling that South Africa felt in the tied semi-final in 1999 – they hadn’t lost the game, but they would not be playing in the final. The rules were known at that time, so there was no doubt as to who would be progressing. Lessons are supposed to be learned from such instances. 20 years on and once again a team that has not been beaten on the park was left labelled as the ‘losing’ team. The lack of foresight lays at the feet of the ICC, and although one country and its supporters will always see this as a great day for cricket – in the same way one country still does from 1999 – the rest of the world will see it as a deflating and slightly unfair result.

Umpiring decisions will always haunt matches that finish so close as this final did, and one sticks out from this game that may not have changed the final result but would certainly have changed how it played out. The whole fiasco surrounding the ball ricocheting from Ben Stokes bat in attempting to reach his ground and flying to the boundary is another instance where the laws of the game have become slightly obsolete. To be honest, trying to decipher the law to decide whether or not 5 runs or 6 six runs should have been awarded is not where the problem lies. No doubt it was the immediate problem, because the fate of one run could well have changed the result of the match. It is quite probable that, instead of changing the result to a victory for New Zealand by one run as many pundits have suggested, it could well have resulted in an outright victory for England. Needing two runs from the final ball, Stokes received a juicy full toss from Trent Boult which he tried to bunt into the gap for two, which resulted in only a single before the run out was performed to leave scores level. If England had required three runs, Stokes would likely have put the ball over the fence such was the trajectory it was bowled at.

No, trying to justify the awarding of 5 or 6 runs is not where I see the problem. The problem is simply this – if the ball had not gone to the boundary, the batsmen would have refused to run any extra runs, because since time immemorial batsmen have almost always refused to take extra runs after a ball has ricocheted off their body or their bat in attempting to make their ground. It has become convention to do so, even though it is completely within the laws of the game to do so. It would have been more interesting to see what would have happened had the ball not made the boundary. Would Stokes have called through for extra runs, given that it was a World Cup final on the line, knowing full well that even though it was in the laws of the game it would have contravened a convention that has been followed for decades by batsmen? Whatever he did in that situation he would have been castigated for.

What should be done is to take that law out of the game completely. Change it so that if a ball is thrown and hits the batsman or his equipment, then no further runs can be taken. Surely it makes sense in this day and age, when the cricketers themselves never take advantage of the law, to just simply take it out of the book. If this had been the case on Sunday, then England would have been awarded the two runs that they took, and then the ball deemed as dead when it went from Stokes’ bat to the boundary. Stokes did nothing wrong in this instance, but it feels like a piece of undeserved luck for England to have received those extra runs. Change that law now and be done with it.

England seemed to have most of the luck through the game, but they still needed 15 runs from the final over, and there’s no doubt New Zealand should have been able to avoid losing from that point. I am in agreement that this is a piss poor way to decide a major tournament winner, and that never again should this be allowed to happen - but when New Zealand look back on the last four overs, when England needed 39 runs, they will know they should have won from that point.

On the bright side – surely England cannot win two trophies in one summer. Let's hope the Ashes is a great cricket contest with the right winner. In fact, we’ll take a tied series if you like England... that means we’ll retain them. Let's see how much you would enjoy that tied result.