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.

Aussie World Cup Squad a Chance for Redemption

Everyone has their own opinion on who should be in the World Cup team and squad and who shouldn’t. Everyone will have their personal preferences of particular players who they believe should or shouldn’t be a part of every Australian team. Four months ago, it seemed almost impossible to find fifteen players worthy of selection in a World Cup squad. Now it seems that even a twenty five player squad wouldn’t be enough to have everyone in who deserves a place. As a result, there will be some disappointed players when the actual fifteen player squad is named, which means that if Australia now doesn’t perform well, the naysayers will be out in force over the selected squad and who should have gone instead of whom. Despite this, it is a much better position to be in than we thought was going to be the case.

Australia has just won eight ODI matches in a row. There are lots of things to digest about that statistic.

Firstly is the fact that prior to the third ODI against India, Australia’s record in one day internationals since the beginning of 2018 was abysmal. 18 matches played. 3 wins, 15 losses. They had played against arguably the three best teams in the world only – 10 against England (1 win, 9 losses), 3 against South Africa (1 win, 2 losses) and 5 against India (1 win, 4 losses). One captain had been suspended, and the other was walking a tightrope of poor form. The bowling attack rotated as much as the batting line up. Different plans were utilised, and none were succeeding. Fans were waiting for Smith and Warner’s return, but still wondered if it would make any difference.

Then came the winning streak, eight wins in a row. Three against India who in fairness tinkered with their own line-up to give peripheral players an opportunity. Five more wins against Pakistan who did the same, but still fielded as poorly as they tend to do. Australia won games by setting good totals and defending, and by batting second and chasing the total set for them. They had some luck in these games that contributed to their wins and perhaps didn’t see the best of their opponents. The conditions that the games were played in will bear little resemblance to what they will face in a couple of months in England. But in the lead up to a World Cup, the confidence taken from winning these games and finding a combination that works was more valuable than anything else.

Australia had been trying to follow England’s - and to a lesser degree India’s - batting template in recent times, that being to go hard from the very first ball, and continue to do so regardless of wickets lost. The problem with that was that both England and India didn’t seem to lose as many wickets as Australia did, and Australia was behind the eight ball consistently and their win-loss ratio suffered as a result. Chris Lynn and D’Arcy Short were given their opportunities in this mindset but failed to convert their domestic form to international runs. It could be argued they didn’t get enough chances, but to me they suffered from the fact that the Australian hierarchy eventually came to the conclusion that this method was not in our team’s best interest. No, we had to go back to a more uniform method, one that suited the team we had and their best value.

In doing this, Australia stuck with who and what they knew. Shaun Marsh had been the one shining light with the bat during the past twelve months, and his style is to work the ball around early, and build to a point where he can attack freely later in his innings. Usman Khawaja bats in a similar way, but has worked better when he can take his time before caressing the ball into the gaps to the boundary, before the field is allowed to go back out of the circle. I felt for some time that these two were too similar in style to be maintained in the same ODI team, but they have proven it can work with Khawaja opening and taking advantage of hitting the ball along the ground for four early, and Marsh then coming in and working ones and twos in the same way once the opening ten overs are completed. Complemented by the return to form of Aaron Finch, Australia’s top order has maintained a run rate between 5-6 runs an over in comfort, without taking risks. Perhaps England and India go faster, but Australia has taken this philosophy, and then banked on their middle order to accelerate towards the end.

Enter Glenn Maxwell. Practically ignored by the Smith/Warner/Lehmann era over the previous two years, under the new regime of Finch and Langer he has exploded. Having been shown confidence by his captain and Victorian teammate, Maxwell has scored runs at a blistering pace, and suddenly begun bowling again, keeping the runs down while taking the odd wicket. He has been lifted from number seven to as high as four in the batting order, and is proving to be the match changer/winner that Australia needs. Supported by Peter Handscomb, Marcus Stoinis and Alex Carey, Australia has found the batting format that works for them, and is suddenly winning them cricket matches. The way they bat has been crafted to the strengths of those that have been selected to do their job, and it is working. When it comes to the World Cup, this is a very important point to keep in mind.

The bowling has also been working, though the subcontinent pitches are no doubt helping the twin spin attack being used of Adam Zampa and Nathan Lyon. Whether or not this is sustainable in England is open to question, but the fact that both have been bowling well and doing their job bodes well for when they get their chance during the World Cup.

Australia’s greatest threat to their success comes from which bowlers are now chosen to do the job in the World Cup. Most pundits believe both Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood will come straight into the squad if they are fit in time, but is this the best fit for the team? Hazlewood has played just 6 of the 25 ODI’s since January 2018, for 8 wickets at 35.50 and an economy rate of 5. Starc has played 7 matches, for 11 wickets at 37.36 and an economy rate just over 6. More than their figures, it is the complete lack of matches in this format that is concerning for both bowlers. Both will be underdone if they are chosen. The point on their side is that none of their true contenders such as Jason Behrendorff (7 wickets at 41.42), Kane Richardson (8 at 31.75) or Billy Stanlake (6 at 42.66) has done enough to displace them if they are ruled as fit.

The team though absolutely needs Pat Cummins and Jhye Richardson fit and in that team. Both have played 12 matches in this time period. Cummins has been the leader taking 25 wickets at 20.36 and Richardson 24 wickets at 26.33. Both have been the attacking weapons the team needs if they are to challenge for the World Cup. Nathan Coulter-Nile has also been prominent with 11 wickets at 26.36 from just 6 matches, but injury continues to dog his own chances.

Which all leads us to the question as to who should the selectors choose in their final fifteen player squad. There are going to be some unlucky players, and perhaps some who are also a little fortunate.

If we assume that Australia is going to stick with its current batting philosophy, then the current top seven who have played against Pakistan all must go, and must be the top seven from the first match. The squeeze will come from whether or not Alex Carey is seen to be expendable as wicket-keeper, and instead install Handscomb in that role in order to get another batsman or bowler into the team. That would be very harsh on Carey, who has played all of his 19 internationals in the past twelve months. He looks a comfortable selection at seven, and has just made his first fifty last week. Changing that position would be against everything it appears the team has worked towards in the last four months. Carey should be the keeper, with Handscomb in the squad as batsman only but back-up keeper should anything go wrong.

Both Steve Smith and David Warner look certain to be chosen to make their international returns, and their limited T20 appearances around the world should be enough to have them in shape and ready to go when asked. My belief is that they should not automatically come back into the first XI, as their inclusion would change the way the batsmen have been operating. One can only believe that they will play a part in the tournament, but that doesn’t have to be from the outset. With Finch, Khawaja, Marsh, Handscomb, Maxwell, Stoinis, Carey, Smith and Warner making nine in the squad, there is no room for the wonderfully talented Ashton Turner which is a real shame. It also means that none of Lynn, Short, Matthew Wade or any other batting candidate can come into the squad unless one of these nine is discarded, and this looks very unlikely.

The six bowling slots look to choose themselves, barring injury befalling any of the candidates. Starc and Hazlewood will get their chance if they are passed fit, while Cummins and Jhye Richardson are the other two pacemen at the top of the list. They will be joined by both Zampa and Lyon, which leaves plenty of other bowlers with cases for selection missing the plane. If any of the four pace bowlers doesn’t come up though – and only Cummins at the moment looks a certainty regarding no injury concerns - there is scope for a return. Having been in the squad for the past two months, Coulter-Nile, Behrendorff and Kane Richardson would be in the best seat to grab an available spot. However, the wild card is James Pattinson, whose return from injury once again has been spectacular. He is currently being spoken of as an Ashes certainty, but surely he has a case for inclusion in the World Cup squad as well, with his pace and swing and seam.

If I was choosing the squad, I would be looking for any way possible to fit both Ashton Turner and James Pattinson into the team, because for me they provide the kind of spark that this team needs to lift itself into a World Cup winning team. There is no way to do that without some tough calls, and I think it is unlikely it will happen, but their ability to make something happen from nothing is something I would very much like to see.

Likely squad: Aaron Finch (c), Usman Khawaja, David Warner, Steve Smith, Glenn Maxwell, Marcus Stoinis, Alex Carey (wk) (vc), Pat Cummins, Mitch Starc, Adam Zampa, Josh Hazlewood, Shaun Marsh, Peter Handscomb, Jhye Richardson, Nathan Lyon.

My squad: Aaron Finch, Usman Khawaja, Shaun Marsh, Peter Handscomb (wk), Glenn Maxwell, Marcus Stoinis, Ashton Turner, Pat Cummins (vc), Mitch Starc, Jhye Richardson, Adam Zampa, David Warner, Steve Smith, Nathan Lyon, James Pattinson.

Openers Battle to Regain the Faith

For the purists amongst us, the return of the Sheffield Shield after what felt like three years of Big Bash was greeted with cheers, and after the cricket that was played over those four days we had every reason to be cheering. There were tight close contests, there were stars with the bat and the ball, and talking points all the way through. But without a doubt the biggest contest came from two batsmen playing for different teams in different games in different cities, both vying for one place in an Ashes touring squad, and both looking for redemption after vastly differing cricket seasons.

At Bankstown Oval, Cameron Bancroft was making his return to first class cricket for Western Australia against New South Wales, after eleven months since the ball tampering saga interrupted his career. He had returned to club cricket in November, and had played in the BBL since his suspension had concluded, but this was his first match back in real cricket, and he had a point to prove. Meanwhile at Junction Oval, Marcus Harris made his return against Queensland for his first match for Victoria since he had been anointed as a Test batsman, and though he had been lauded for his poise in his first six Tests, a lack of big runs had left him vulnerable in the immediate future, and he needed to show he could do that. 

Whether it is clear cut or not, it does appear very likely that Dave Warner will be selected in the Ashes squad for England later this year. With his own suspension only a month away from concluding and the difficultly the Australian Test team has had at the top of the order in his absence it seems unlikely he will be passed over for that squad. Given his efforts in Canberra against Sri Lanka it would seem that Joe Burns will also be on the plane to England. If this is the case, there is only room for one more opening batsman join these two in that 16 or 17 man squad for the tour. It means that in effect there is a bat off between all of the other candidates out there looking to make that team. And while you could also include others such as Matt Renshaw, Daniel Hughes, Alex Doolan and even Jake Wetherald in this discussion, the likelihood is that the final position will come down to a direct decision between Cameron Bancroft and Marcus Harris.

And I think they both know it. 

On Day 1 at Bankstown, Bancroft crafted his innings carefully. His poise against a full strength New South Wales attack eighteen months ago had earned him his Test debut, and he now went about using another match against the same opposition to find a way back. On a day slightly shortened by rain, Bancroft stood firm, batting through the entire day to reach 73 not out from 83 overs bowled and a total of 5/183. With the wicket still difficult to score on during Day 2, he continued his defiant stand, refusing to buckle under the pressure the accurate attack threw at him. When the Western Australian innings was finally completed, Bancroft was still there, undefeated on 138 off 358 deliveries having scored almost exactly half of the Warriors total of 279. With so much having been made of Cheteshwar Pujara’s ability to bat time during the recent Test series, and the bemoaning for an Australian batsman who could do the same, Bancroft had provided exactly what those people had been asking for. Was it deliberate, or just a response to the pitch and bowling he faced? Either way, in the eyes of many it was the perfect return given the circumstances of the Test summer just gone. 

At almost the same time that Bancroft walked off Bankstown Oval with his undefeated century, Marcus Harris walked onto Junction Oval to assuage his response. There is little doubt that he would have been aware of what had occurred north of him, and what he had to do in order to draw parallel with it. Queensland had posted a total of 441 in their first innings, which gave Harris a target to bat at, and the knowledge that he had to make a mark in order to keep his team in the game. And so he did, first with Dean and then Pucovski before finding an ally in Nic Maddinson to attack the bowling. Harris played with sublimity, punching cover drives and cut shots mixed with ferocious pull shots to keep the bowlers in check. He hit 15 boundaries in his innings as he approached stumps, before being adjudged caught behind off Swepson with only a few balls remaining in the day. It’s difficult to judge whether his disappointment is in getting out so close to stumps just five runs away from his own century, or whether he felt he didn’t hit the ball. Either way, his 95 had in some ways answered the challenge laid before him by Bancroft’s innings and yet once again saw him fall short of the century milestone that he would have felt was needed under the circumstances. 

Back at Bankstown, and Western Australia chased leather for day and a half as New South Wales, led by centuries from Patterson and Nevill racked up 8 declared for 477, before giving the visitors a short time to bat before stumps on the third day. Though they lost a wicket, Bancroft was again there for Day 4, and he spent most of it in a backs-to-the-wall fight to gain a draw for him team. Much like the first innings, Bancroft kept showing the full face of his bat while wickets fell at the other end. Only Inglis and Paris could manage double figures as the Blues net tightened with Copeland and O’Keefe circling. Sangha picked up two cheap wickets, but Bancroft stood firm. He had some fortune, but all batsmen do if they are going to save a game like this. The new ball was taken, and with it some extra purchase for Steve O’Keefe. Bancroft finally made a tired lunge forward, and the ball spun and dipped wickedly past his bat, and Nevill was like a flash with the gloves as Bancroft’s balance was lost forward and was stumped. It broke the Western Australia resistance, with the final three wickets falling within six deliveries, and New South Wales had gained an innings victory. 

Bancroft’s second marathon for the match ended with his score on 86 from 263 deliveries. He was on the field for all but ten deliveries of the match, and fell just 28 deliveries short of the record of most deliveries faced in a Sheffield Shield Match. Steve Waugh holds the record with 649. Bancroft faced 621. All of this in his first appearance in a first-class match since the 3rd Test between South Africa and Australia in March last year. Statement made. 

As Bancroft and Western Australia finally fell to defeat, back at Junction Oval Marcus Harris was on a rescue mission of his own. Queensland had declared their second innings, leaving Victoria a chase of 300 to win in 80 overs, a reasonable target though on a fourth day pitch. Dean was dismissed in the first over, and at 4/110 the writing was on the wall, and one suspected that fighting for just a draw was going to be a difficult proposition. By this time Harris had passed his second half century of the match, but he was going to need more if he was to keep his name in the spotlight that Bancroft was drawing away from him. Rather than stonewall his way to a draw, Harris and partner Matt Short keep the run rate above four an over, consistently finding gaps in the field despite Queensland’s efforts to stem the run flow. On 94, Harris put Swepson over the fence to bring up his century off just 122 deliveries, a stark contrast to what had occurred at Bankstown. But this was a different scenario. The Vics were looking for victory not a draw, and at 4/164 with 34 overs remaining, they were in with a chance. The positive statement continued unabated. The 200 came up in the 56th over, leaving under a hundred to get with 24 overs remaining, and now Queensland began to employ different tactics, employing 7-2 fields and bowling wide of the stumps to try and restrict the scoring. None of it worked. Harris brought up his 150 and just kept going, find the boundaries on both sides of the wicket with ease. He was dropped twice in this period, both to the jabbed guide that plagued him in the Test series rather than playing a full-blooded cut, but the damage had probably already been done. When he was finally dismissed, pulling a Swepson ball to mid-wicket, Harris had made 174 runs from 197 deliveries, including 23 boundaries and a six. He had almost single handedly led his team to a winning run chase, in the process breaking the century barrier that had eluded him since being chosen in the Test team, and proving that he most definitely has the qualities required of a Test opening batsman. Statement returned. 

There are three rounds remaining in this summer’s Sheffield Shield season, and a final that Harris will most likely play in and Bancroft will not. These four days have been a wonderful bat-off between the two, so symmetrical and yet almost polar opposite in effect. This is not to denigrate the other excellent performances over the four days, but this battle is the one that will have my full attention over the next month.

Is Sri Lanka's Series Victory the Greatest Ever?

Is it possible to rate the most unlikely Test victories ever? History is littered with examples of teams who were rated at short odds to be victors, only to find themselves on the wrong side of defeat. The first ever Test match in Melbourne in 1877 ranks as one, as does the first Australian victory in England at The Oval in 1882. I could name a hundred examples I guess. But surely no Test series victory has ever been better or more unlikely than that just achieved by the Sri Lankan cricket team which defeated South Africa in South Africa over the past two weeks. Their 2-0 victory, missing key personnel and having already suffered defeat in New Zealand and Australia, must rank as the greatest ever Test series victory. 

It’s been a long time away from home for the Sri Lankan’s. Not only did they lose their home Test series against England 3-0, they then headed to New Zealand where despite fighting hard they lost the two Test series 1-0, and then lost in Australia 2-0. In both series they showed glimpses of fight, and of the possibility of good things to come. 

In the 1st Test against New Zealand, Mendis and Mathews batting the entire fourth day without losing a wicket which then allowed them to salvage an unlikely draw when day five was a complete washout. In the 2nd Test they bowled the Kiwis out on the first day for 178 having had them 3/22 early on (here lies a significant statistic), before their own batting capitulation cost them the match and the two Test series. 

In the 1st Test against Australia their deplorable batting minus Mathews cost them the match, but they had Australia at 4/82 early on the second afternoon chasing their first innings total of 144, and a further burst could have been significant. In the 2nd Test they twice had Australia on the ropes, at 3/28 in the first innings (finishing at 5/534 declared) and 3/37 in the second innings (finishing at 3/196 declared). Beyond this, they had made a rollicking start to their own first innings, reaching 0/82 and cruising until Karunaratne was forced to retire hurt after being hit in the head from a ball from Pat Cummins, a moment that triggered an unfortunate end to their plucky resistance and perhaps signalled the end of their fight to save the Test.

The team that arrived in South Africa had further changes, including a new captain in Karunaratne. No one gave them a semblance of a chance of defeating the locals. Their bowling attack of Steyn, Philander, Rabada and the new kid Olivier along with the batting of Elgar, Markram, du Plessis, Amla and de Kock looked far too superior, especially on their own wickets. Perhaps they thought this too. Perhaps, as in the past, this is what was South Africa’s downfall. 

The victory in the 1st Test was remarkable enough. South Africa found themselves at 3/17 early in their first innings (there’s those three early wickets again) before getting to 235 all out, a score Sri Lanka could not match with 191 all out. South Africa looked in total control in their second innings, only to lose their last six wickets for 68 runs, leaving Sri Lanka needing the highest score of the match to win, a target of 304 runs – a total they had reached only once in their past 14 innings. At 9/226 it was finished, and yet Kusal Perera’s amazing innings of 153 not out and an unbroken final wicket stand of 78 got Sri Lanka its most famous Test victory. For perhaps a week... 

No matter what anyone thought before the 1st Test, there was little doubt among most of the cricket fraternity that South Africa would bounce back in the 2nd Test and restore a little of the honour they had lost. Once again though, the match was off the rails. South Africa was 3/15 (those three early wickets again) before recovering to 222 much as they had done in the 1st Test. In reply Sri Lanka could only manage 154, mainly thanks to a slogging Dickwella with a slogging 42 at number eight. Taking a lead of 68 runs into the second innings South Africa should surely have felt the game was – once again – completely in their control. Even at 3/51 (three early wickets) they would have felt on top of things. They would not have planned for the chaos that followed, losing their last seven wickets in the space of 38 runs as their captain stood stranded at the other end, and being bundled out for just 128. At the end of day two Sri Lanka was 2/60 with both openers out, but with only 137 runs required for history. 

Even then, who could have predicted the serene way that Fernando and Mendis cruised to the victory target of 197. There was no fear, as the run rate held steady at over four runs an over throughout the innings. Solid defence and fearless stroke play belied the pressure that should have been on the batsmen in such a chase. Instead it was the South Africans on which the pressure weighed so heavily, eventually condemning them to oblivion as the Sri Lankans won by eight wickets with barely a ripple. In doing so they became the first Asian team to win a Test series in South Africa, and in convincing 2-0 fashion as well. 

On this evidence, can there have been a bigger upset Test victory in the history of cricket? As I stated at the beginning there will be other examples that people can mention that will be considered as such. But given the quality of the South African team and being in their home conditions, and the fact that over the previous twelve months they had defeated both India and Australia in the same conditions, as well as Sri Lanka having come off three consecutive losing Test series, the evidence appears overwhelming. 

The prosecution rests, Your Honour.

World Cup Spots on the Line in Indian Summer

With the Australian cricket scene sidling back into the maligned Sheffield Shield competition for the remaining weeks of the season, the final preparations for Australia’s World Cup defence begin, with the short tour of India beginning next week. With two T20I and five ODI matches to be played, then followed by more ODI’s against Pakistan, this will be where the last challenges can be made for inclusion in the final 15 man squad to go to England in May.

Unless something goes dreadfully wrong over the course of those ten ODI matches, there are already a huge number of players locked in, and it will only be the players on the periphery that will need to succeed if they are to get a chance to make the final squad.

Captain Aaron Finch, now a tournament winning captain after the Renegades victory in the BBL final, will be hoping to use the matches on flat slow wickets to regain his touch with the bat and release that pressure from his mind. Alongside him as near-certainties will be Shaun Marsh, Alex Carey, Marcus Stoinis and Glenn Maxwell. Whether it is to be debated by the general public or not, so are Steve Smith and David Warner assuming both recover from their elbow operations. That takes up most of the batting spots in the squad, with just the reserve bats to be decided.

D'Arcy Short is only on tour for a short time covering for Shaun Marsh, so you would expect he will be given the playing time for the matches he is available for. It’s a big test for him, perhaps his last chance to force himself back into World Cup contention. It will be a tough task, and will require something special from him to do it. Given that India are likely to exploit his weakness against spin from the outset, if he does succeed in making good runs it will likely count as double for him. Usman Khawaja will again push his case, and under most circumstances probably should be in the best 15. However the ODI game is changing and one now wonders whether a team can afford to have two players of a similar style batting together in the top order, as Khawaja and Marsh are. It’s an interesting conundrum, and perhaps with Smith batting between them it could work, but to do so one of them would have to open the batting, thus displacing wither Finch or Warner. Big runs from both Short and Khawaja will at least give the selectors a tough task in choosing their eventual squad – no runs just makes it easy not to take either of them.

This also leaves Peter Handscomb for consideration, and it wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility that he is being sneakily looked at as the keeper-batsman for the squad. He won’t get the gloves in India, but if he made runs and Carey did not then there is a chance the selectors may defer in his direction. That would be a disappointing conclusion if it did occur. Carey deserves his moment. Handscomb should have to force his way into the squad as a batsman only. 

The most exciting member of the squad is the West Australia, Ashton Turner. Turner has been around for a number of season, and his hard hitting technique with the bat, excellent fielding and handy part time spin makes him an ideal candidate for any ODI team, provided he is given the opportunity and knows what his role is within the team. He is an excellent exponent of the 360 degrees of batting and is capable of shifting gears depending on the course the innings is taking. It may well be that he won’t be able to fit into the World Cup squad given those that are in front of him, but as a wild card selection with an emphasis on late order hitting and handy 2-3 overs of fill in bowling he has his chance to force that door open fully on this tour. 

Of the bowling attack, it is still murky waters in regards to selection. Pat Cummins is on tour to India and a certainty, while both Mitch Starc and Josh Hazlewood would be considered certainties to be in the squad if they recover their fitness. That’s where the darkness lies at the moment mainly because neither will have played any ODI cricket since November last year by the time the tournament starts. That’s a risky proposition, but perhaps no more than the selection of Smith and Warner. 

All the bowlers in this squad apart for Cummins are playing for a spot to England. Adam Zampa and Nathan Lyon will square off again for the spinners role, with Zampa now with his nose in front. Neither did much in the ODI’s against India last month, but Zampa’s form in the BBL would look to have him as the likely pick at this stage. Their form and own contest will be fascinating. 

Jhye Richardson was excellent in Australia and will only need to continue to show that kind of form to find a way into the World Cup squad. Nathan Coulter-Nile, Jason Behrendorff and Kane Richardson have all shown good things in their opportunities against international opposition, and all three will know that if they can perform well on this tour, and the injured stars do not recover, they can be not only in the World Cup squad but perhaps be a big part of the team that plays. For them, it is a potential bowl-off for a spot in the actual World Cup XI and not just the touring fifteen. 

While the conditions this tour is played in will be completely different from what they will face in England, the opposition they face now is as tough as it comes. Thus, the team as a whole, and the individuals within it, will need to be at their best if they want to win games. A series victory in India would be the perfect way to go into a World Cup. If not, then they must show that they can at least compete at this level and challenge the Indian team. Any hopes of winning in England depend on a good showing in this series.

When Cricket is a 97/100 Proposition

Over the weekend we saw a 24-hour period that was a perfect example of how unpredictable the game of cricket in its many forms can be. Three teams looked to have gotten themselves into unbeatable situations, to have had the winning of the game firmly in their grasp. In odds-makers terms, any team in the same position as these three teams should win 99 times out of 100. Well, if nothing else was proven on the day, those odds actually appear to be just 97 out of 100.

In South Africa in the 1st Test against Sri Lanka, the home team had driven home their advantage, and was on the verge of another home Test victory. Requiring 304 in the fourth innings of the match, Sri Lanka has recovered from 5/110 to 5/206 before a late flurry of 4/20 left them at 9/226 and the match was as good as over. 78 for the final wicket in this situation was never going to be an option.
And then a funny thing happened. Kusal Perera targeted the bowling, picking his areas and waiting for the right ball to deposit to and over the boundary, while his young cohort Vishwa Fernando at the other end refused to buckle, the confidence of having taken eight wickets in the match now surging into his batting. It was exhilarating stuff that was only hindered by the constant thought that at any moment it would come to an end. But it didn’t.
The new ball was taken at 9/263, still 41 short of victory. Now you suspected it was only a matter of time. The batsmen tried to sneak a single with a squirt to slips, and Elgar’s throw to the bowlers end narrowly missed the stumps – it would have been out, but with no one backing up it ended up being a five. Then Perera smashed Steyn over mid-wicket for six. In the following over a top edged pull went for six over the keeper's head. Then a repeat shot over mid-wicket off Steyn in the next over meant suddenly Sri Lanka only needed six runs! Two leg byes kept Perera on strike, and then he played a perfect one-day glide past first slip to the vacant third man for four to win the game for his team. Joyous scenes erupted, and the vanquished South African team was once again left to wonder how on earth they had allowed themselves to be defeated from an unlosable situation, especially with a bowling attack consisting of Steyn, Rabada, Philander, Olivier and Maharaj. It raised the ire of the term “choker” back into the South African vernacular, and so close to another World Cup that is a term they are certainly not adverse to.
Scorecard: 1st Test South Africa vs Sri Lanka

In Australia in the final of the BBL T20 domestic tournament, the Melbourne Stars was about to win their first title. Having bowled and fielded superbly to restrict their opponents the Melbourne Renegades to 5/145 despite an unbeaten partnership of 80 between Tom Cooper and Dan Christian, the Stars had then cruised to 0/93 from 13 overs. There was literally no way they could lose this match. With Dunk and Stoinis at the crease, and Handscomb, Maxwell, Maddinson, Gotch and Bravo still to come, there was literally no way that they could not score the 52 runs from 43 deliveries that they required to lift the trophy. No team could lose from this position, except by beating themselves.

Which is exactly what they then proceeded to do. Stoinis was bowled trying to hit Boyce over the boundary, almost the first shot in anger he had attempted. Handscomb threw his bat wildly to hole out to cover. Dunk decided to hit the final ball of Boyce’s last over straight to deep mid-off, and Maxwell skied the next delivery to deep square leg. The Stars had lost 4/6 in 12 deliveries. The game was no longer a certainty. 

But the mayhem didn’t stop. Maddinson, Gotch and Bravo all played deplorable shots to all be caught as well, and the resulting panic had brought 7/19 from 30 deliveries, with each and every wicket brought about by poor strokes and/or poor headspace from the batsmen. At any point in this carnage, had just one of the batsmen pulled back and considered the situation and with a clear head saw that a single every ball and the odd boundary would still win this game, they would have won the game. Instead, it was left to Zampa and Bird to score 33 runs from 13 deliveries, which they were never going to do, and the Renegades won by 13 runs.

Honestly if this match had been played in a different place by different teams, it would have been labelled as match fixing and be under investigation. As it is, perhaps it should be anyway. Cricket officials are already discovering that T20 cricket is the perfect place to indulge in spot-fixing and the like. Just what would the Renegades have been paying with 52 runs required off 43 deliveries and all ten wickets still in hand?
BBL08 Final: Melbourne Renegades vs Melbourne Stars

Meanwhile in Oman Quadrangular T20I Series, the Netherlands had Ireland under the thumb and about to pull off a great victory when yet another match went pear shaped.

Netherlands had managed 9/182 off their 20 overs, a total that even on the flat dry wickets of Oman should probably have been enough for victory. With two overs remaining Ireland was close enough, requiring 18 runs from 12 balls and with just five wickets in hand. A terrific penultimate over from Klassen saw only six runs scored but vitally two wickets fall, leaving 12 runs required from six deliveries. A single and a boundary came off the first two deliveries, before a run out occurred when trying to sneak an impossible second run, followed by another wicket the following delivery. A dot ball on the penultimate delivery meant six runs were required off the final ball, with the last man at the crease. The previous eleven deliveries had been perfect death bowling, all it needed was for one more perfect delivery and the match was Netherlands. They couldn’t lose. Except that the final ball was bowled right into the wheelhouse of Stuart Poynter, who clubbed the ball over mid-wicket for six to win the game. Incredible.
Oman Quadrangular T20I: Netherlands vs Ireland

What does any of this show? In the case of T20 cricket, it is further proof that this version of the game really does allow teams of any standard to surprise and pull off an upset. It also shows that there is never a good time in T20 cricket to throw your wicket away thinking that the next guy in should win it for you. The result in South Africa is something completely different. A touring team that had already tasted heavy defeat in two other countries over the past two months found a way to overcome adversity in a third country and defeat a team ‘ranked’ much higher than they were. Like the West Indies recent defeat of England in their Test series, it proves that cricket is not a predictable game or one that you can ever rest on your laurels; that the game is never over until the final ball is delivered. And isn’t it so much more enjoyable because of it...

BBL Needs Retooling to Keep Australian Summer Relevant

If there is anyone in the known universe who doesn’t think that the eighth edition of the Big Bash League has not gone on too long, then they truly have no life outside of the least fascinating version of the game of cricket. With the 59th and final match of the competition to be played this afternoon, the deciding match between the Melbourne Renegades and the Melbourne Stars, two months have passed since the first match took place a week before Christmas. How many people actually remember who played against each other in that match, and what happened? It is an interminably long tournament, and interest has fluctuated throughout depending on whether you have been on holidays or not and able to actually take it all in. Some matches have been fascinating, some have been a dead loss, and then there are a whole bunch of matches in the middle that became predictable before the first innings had concluded.

We know that, at least for the four remaining years of the current television deal, the competition will not be shortened, as the networks have paid out their billion plus dollars knowing they will get this many games to broadcast. I believe this will end up being a problem down the track. Even as Cricket Australia has flagged tightening the schedule next season to have the BBL finished by the beginning of February it means having the same number of matches played this season being squeezed into less days of an already packed schedule, which risks turning fans and viewers away from one or more of the current versions of the game – Tests, ODI’s, T20 or all domestic formats. As much fun as I find it watching cricket from 9.30am to midnight, it is not practical in regard to the working and family lives of the majority of people. Sadly, myself included.

Notwithstanding that no shortening of the BBL is forthcoming, I still present my own solution to the BBL competition for consideration here:

1. Bring in the Canberra Comets as the ninth team. The Comets played in the domestic one day series for a time during the late 1990’s. Though at the time it was deemed the supporter base was not large enough to support a team, much has changed in the two decades since. At all underage national championships both male and female, the ACT/NSW Country teams have dominated, reaching several finals. They also now have a team in the Futures League, ensuring the large NSW player base has a platform to graduate to the higher levels. Manuka Oval is now a Test match ground and is perfectly placed to host BBL games with access far reaching to the south and west to regions where travelling to Sydney to watch games is out of the question. It would also give country NSW kids a team to support and watch and more importantly aspire to play for. The base is already there and setting up the team should not drain the resources of Cricket Australia so much that it is a burden. There would be a question raised as to is there enough depth in playing talent to cope with another team in the BBL, but there is part solution to that question…
2. Increase international imports for each team to three. Giving each team the chance to have three internationals could immediately free up eight players from other squads. This is not a given, as the Scorchers and the Hurricanes played for most of BBL08 with only one international, but it does give each team a better scope to find international players to boost their team and their ability to draw in fans. There have been problems in attractive players such as AB De Villiers given the plethora of other T20 tournaments happening around the globe and the money they are paying the best players to attend, but if Cricket Australia agreed to promote a shorter and more compact BBL it could be more conducive to attracting international players than the overblown one we now have. This could be achieved by…
3. Each team only plays each other once. With the addition of a ninth team, this would mean that each team would have four home games and four away games, which mirrors more closely the format of the competition as it was when it started eight years ago. The reduction in home games from seven to four should mean that each game will be better attended than they have been in BBL08, filling grounds like the SCG, MCG, Marvel and Optus Stadiums that have been half full for most of the tournament. This would also cut the number of matches in the preliminary round from 56 games this season to 36 games next season. By doing this, we would achieve…
4. The BBL window shrunk to 4-5 weeks. If this was implemented next season, the BBL could start on Friday December 20, a few days later than this season. And depending on scheduling of Tests and ODI matches, it could be completed on the Australia Day long weekend. This would mean the tournament would be a little over a month long. Surely the positives of this would mean that spectators interest could be held for the entire tournament, that international players could happily come known they would be here for a month and not two months, and that the other pillars of the Australian summer, such as the one day domestic competition and the much maligned Sheffield Shield competition would be given room to breathe and actually feel as though they are a part of the summer again instead of just pigeon holed into whatever small gaps appear after the other tournaments have taken all the prime scheduling. If done well, it could also mean that Australia’s international players may even be able to play for a portion of the tournament, something it needs to help showcase it to other parts of the world.

These are by no means the only fixes that could be applied, but to me are sensible steps to reclaim the higher ground for cricket of all levels in Australia during the summer. The BBL is only a cash cow for Cricket Australia while it makes money, and the over-saturation of the tournament this year has already shown signs of killing off the goose that lays the golden eggs. The tournament is too long, and everyone can see that. Cricket Australia needs to fid a way to negotiate with its TV partners to try and tackle this now and not in four years’ time, otherwise we may find that it is too late to save what can still be a terrific, fun and enthralling tournament from becoming a lacklustre drawcard that drags the rest of Australian cricket down with it.

Of course, we know that just won’t happen, until it is too late.

P.S – the first game of the BBL this season was the Brisbane Heat against the Adelaide Strikers at the Gabba. Just in case you had forgotten.

Selection Roundabout Continues as Sri Lankan Series Arrives

Depending on your point of view, the current situation with the choosing of the Test sqaud for the Test series against Sri Lanka either shows that the National Selection Panel (NSP) of Trevor Hohns, Greg Chappell and Justin Langer are on the right track and are ensuring the best team possible is being selected while trying to avoid as much controversy as possible, or they are proving to be stumbling from one cock up to another. As always they will be judged by the performance on the field of the players they have chosen, but does the process itself come across as inept? 

The selection of the squad for the Test series more than two weeks out from the 1st Test is the first case for conversation. On the face of it, this appears to have been done in order to stop talk in the media of the possible fate of the Marsh brothers in particular but of any number of others that you could mention (including Peter Handscomb’s omission), which no doubt would have dominated the airwaves throughout the ODI series if it hadn’t been done. It also allowed a ‘good news’ story to emerge to instead take most of the media airtime, in that Will Pucovski in particular had been chosen, and that both Joe Burns and Matt Renshaw were being given belated chances to re-establish themselves in the Test arena. Perhaps this tactic worked fine for the NSP. Given that Shaun Marsh and Handscomb both succeeded (relatively) in the ODI series, did the early call on the Test team save the selectors some pot shots from an eventual decision to exclude them from Test squad? The answer is probably yes. It also abbreviated any possible shaky thoughts they may have had with both of those players, perhaps saving them from second thoughts about their Test removal given their form in the white ball arena. In Marsh’s case at least, this is a good thing. 

There was then the selection of the A team to play Sri Lanka in a warm up game in Tasmania, which looked to become a bat-off between the four batsmen chosen in the A team that were also chosen in the Test squad - i.e. Burns, Renshaw, Pucovski and Marnus Labuschagne. It may have appeared to the NSP as the perfect way to decide who would play in Brisbane and who would miss out on their form in the warm up game. 

Then Kurtis Patterson scored a century in each innings of the warm up match, and Jake Doran a century in the first innings. Neither was in the Test squad. In fact, while they plundered the Sri Lankan bowling, the four batsmen trying to secure a place in the Test starting XI all struggled. It was a bad look and with foresight was the biggest problem the selectors faced in naming the Test team before the warm up game had been played. So, to counter this, they added Patterson to the already bloated Test squad using ‘form’ and ‘centuries’ as the base point they claim to have been using in selecting teams this season – something that, as has been mentioned before, they only appear to use when it is convenient for them (Renshaw’s selection for this squad is a perfect example of ignoring those two case points). Also, to any of the four new names added to the squad two weeks earlier, how do they feel when they are suddenly joined by another, one who now looks like leapfrogging all of them into a Test debut? Batting has not been Australia’s strength in recent times, but with eight now in the squad trying to squeeze into six positions it feels like overkill. 

On top of this, Josh Hazlewood was then diagnosed with the beginning of stress fractures and was ruled out of all cricket for the foreseeable future, and was replaced by Jhye Richardson who was playing in the ODI team. And yet Chris Tremain, who was a most recent member of the Test squad without getting a game and was currently playing in the warm up match against Sri Lanka, was overlooked. It’s another off-track decision, even given that Richardson toured South Africa ten months ago. Using form as a guide, you could argue for either case. Yet Richardson looks to be on the NSP’s fast track while Tremain appears to be being strung along in a similar way that Chadd Sayers was for two years. 

So where do you stand? Do you applaud the NSP decision to name a Test squad early in order to make clear that certain players are now out of the running, to announce that there will be new faces in the team for Brisbane, and yet are courageous enough to add to the squad when a player’s form demands it? Or do you think the NSP has a doddery look when players in the team they named then fail to fire in the warm up match and are exposed by one who wasn’t named in the original squad, meaning they have to accede and name him or look foolish... but look foolish for having to do so? There is a case for both arguments. To me it feels like they took a gamble, and it is one that didn’t pay off. 

In once again passing over Tremain they are playing God with his career, and it feels eerily like what has happened to Sayers and Joe Mennie and countless others in recent years. Players that show great form for a 2-3 year period without getting a chance at the highest level, and are then gifted a one-off chance at a time that their previously excellent form has waned, and they are unable to produce enough for the selectors to ever try them again. While Richardson may well be brilliant in this series – and we all hope he is – surely the Brisbane wicket against a Sri Lankan team somewhat adverse to pace bowling would have been the perfect place for the tall and fast Tremain to debut. I can’t help but feel it is a massive missed opportunity by the NSP. 

Patterson was the victim three years ago when he probably should have been the one to debut against South Africa in Adelaide, when instead Nic Maddinson was chosen, ironically when his best form too had waned. He appears to be the kind of player Australia is searching for, and if he gets his chance it will be interesting to see how he performs. But it exposes the unusual decision to bring Matt Renshaw back into the fold with no first-class form behind him and ignore those that have been making runs in the Shield this season, and again brings a cloud of uncertainty and suspicion about the way the NSP goes about selecting our national teams. 

However, we are now at this point, and in two days time our revamped Test squad will take on an eminently weakened and shallow Sri Lankan team that under normal circumstances you would expect to be well and truly thrashed over the next two weeks. But this is not the Australia we have seen over the past two decades, and despite not possessing some of their best performers due to injury, Sri Lanka acquitted themselves well against a strong New Zealand team over the last month and will be looking to create some history of their own. Whether the NSP will be happy with the eventual outcome of the next two weeks may well also decide their own fate.