England's Batting Woes Spell Trouble for Future Series

England cricket finds itself in a world of hurt, partly through their insistence upon a bubble mentality in the age of Covid19, but also through a desperate lack of depth in batting, following their defeat at the hands of New Zealand at the so-called Fortress Edgbaston today.

To be honest, England were fortunate not to lose the two Test series 2-0, with the Lords Test having lost a complete day to rain, with New Zealand in a strong position to have pressed for victory there had it not rained all through Day Three.

Not only that, New Zealand made six changes to their team for the Second Test, and still managed to thump England to the tune of eight wickets in a comprehensive and dominant display of Test cricket.

English commentators and experts are already wondering how the team can possibly find a way to reverse this by the time they reach Australia in an effort to regain the Ashes at the end of the year, but surely their first port of call should be trying to avoid a series loss to India in the home Test series starting in August, or indeed avoiding a wipeout against the current number one Test team, rather than worrying about an Australian team with its own batting woes to solve.

England did themselves no favours in this series, deciding that the players returning from the Indian Premier League would not be considered for selection, instead being allowed to rest and recuperate at home. It has been the England solution to deal with the Covid19 pandemic and the use of bubbles in the various tours they have undertaken over the last 12 months, and certainly they cannot be criticised for putting player welfare and mental health first in these unique times.

But in a home series, where it appears from the outside that players would have had sufficient time to be ready to participate in this Test series, surely the likes of Jos Buttler and Jonny Bairstow in particular could have been vital inclusions in this batting line up. Or perhaps not, indeed perhaps the selectors felt all a long that the top six that they went into this series with was indeed the best that England had to offer.

The fact that Ben Stokes was out injured certainly hampered the team balance, while Jofra Archer’s injury woes also cost them another vital piece of their best team scenario. And losing Ben Foakes to an injury the day before the first Test, with both next best keeping option in Buttler and Bairstow not in the team bubble, was also not the best preparation. However, it is the lack of runs from the top six that is causing the greatest concern.

And change must occur before that first Test against India comes to pass. Rory Burns and skipper Joe Root are the only certain inclusions in that top six. How they must look at New Zealand’s depth, where they not only had a solid top six in the first Test, but then replaced two of them, including their captain and best batsman, almost seamlessly for the second Test and still won comfortably. Dom Sibley crawled to a half century in the second innings of the first Test when England just batted time, but otherwise struggled. Zac Crawley continues to plod along in mediocrity. Ollie Pope looks good without being able to make that solid contribution they need, while Dan Lawrence is still a work in progress.

No doubt Stokes will return if fit, and perhaps either Foakes or Buttler as keeper, or even both with one as batter only. And surely if these two Tests have shown anything, they have shown Root is not a front line spin option, and England must choose one to be effective in all conditions. From an Australian perspective, I love seeing England get beaten. I don’t know what the answers are to their batting woes, any more than I know the answers to Australia’s own similar problems in their Test batting. But one thing is for sure, England must decide very soon which of their misfiring batting order they feel are worth persisting with and which they feel are now ballast overboard, because Australia is the least of their problems in the immediate future, they have a full strength India in a five Test series that are the immediate cause for concern.

Afghanistan Debut Being Buried in Pink Tape

Of all of the changes and disappointments that have been and will be occurring in the cricketing world due to COVID-19 and the worldwide pandemic, perhaps the one that will be most impacted is the debut Test match for Afghanistan in Australia later this year.

Though many but the most passionate cricket supporters will wave their hand dismissively and suggest that it is just a sidenote to the looming return clash with India, this is an historic clash that deserves better than the squabbling over where it will be played and how long the match will go for.

It has been eighteen months since the current Future Tours Program was released, and we found that Australia would indeed play its first Test match against cricket’s newest Test nation, and since that day the tour group that I am a part of (the 2nd XI Tour Squad) had pencilled in that Test as one we would be definitely attending. Why? Its historic nature, to be a part of that first ever clash between the two nations at the highest level. To see at close range just how players like Rashid Khan and Mujeeb ur Raman would go in Test conditions against the best Australia can produce. To say that we were there for that occasion. Many will scoff at this statement. Many will and do see it as a massive waste of time, that the game will probably be over in two days, that Australia will win by a thousand runs.

To me, the result is meaningless. For cricket to survive and grow, other nations must be able to dip their toe into the highest level of cricket and find their way. And they need to be able to be promoted as such. Zimbabwe (1992) and Bangladesh (1999) have both been relatively ignored by Australia since their elevation to Test status, as cricket in Australia becomes more concerned about money and gate takings and TV ratings than the development of cricket in other nations. It is something I believe that needs to be addressed, certainly as we move into this post-pandemic period.

COVID-19 has done Afghanistan no favours, and assuming they are able to tour and compete in this Test match, they will likely do so in front of an empty stadium. Again, the naysayers will suggest that “even without the no-crowd mandate, no one would turn up to watch them!” These are generally the people who rarely attend any cricket unless they are sitting near the bar and can drink all day without watching the actual game anyway. What is true is that the match won’t draw attendance days of 10,000, but outside of England and India no other touring team is guaranteed of doing that in Australia either.

The Afghanistan Test has been set to be played in Perth, which has missed out on one of the four Indian Tests to Brisbane. There is plenty of indignation from the city given they have two Test venues and they are ‘only’ getting the ‘booby prize’. They believe their brand new Optus Stadium is a far better venue than the ageing facilities of the ‘Gabba. On the other hand, Australia has not lost at Test at the ‘Gabba since the 1988/89 season against the West Indies, and it is no secret the national team see it as their good luck charm and want to play at the venue. As a result, Cricket Australia has chosen results over facilities and the W.A.C.A. is not happy about it. Added to this is that due to arrangements with the venue and the fact that the men’s T20 World Cup seems less likely to go ahead this season, the Test will be played at Optus Stadium spectators or not, even though the W.A.C.A Ground would be a much more suitable venue under the circumstances.

To add even more imbalance to the match, it is going to be a day/night Test with the pink ball, something Afghanistan will not have experienced and one which Australia thrives in. Yes, there’s no doubt that it is being done in the hope that there will be someone to watch it in prime time hours on the east coast, but it hands another advantage to the home team that they probably don’t need.

Ideally, this match should have been played in Canberra, allowing a greater population well of three capital cities and large country areas the ability to turn up and watch Test cricket. Securing India for a five Test series would also have allayed the problems of one of the five major cricket centres being peeved at not being deemed ‘good enough’ to host a major Test match. What seems easy on paper obviously is not so negotiable to different cricket boards around the world.

All of this together does mean that the Afghanistan Test match will become an afterthought rather than a landmark match it should be. No one knows yet whether spectators will be able to attend, and the pink ball day/night conditions hands Australia’s mighty pace attack another huge advantage. While no one truly believes Afghanistan can survive the might of the Australian XI, surely making it a traditional match would have been a fairer setting. If the gates are opened to the public, my intention is still to be there, to witness history and hopefully some excellent cricket from an emerging team on the world stage.

Root's Caution Backfires as Aussies Stand Tall in Lord's Draw

Of everything that Australian supporters can take out of the just completed 2nd Test, the main one is this – four weeks ago, did anyone actually believe we would be leading this series 1-0 after Lord’s? That Australia is in this position is thanks mainly to its two finest players, and though much of the remainder of the team is in various states of disarray it augers well that Australia in now just one victory away from retaining the Ashes trophy. 

At the start of the final day, England held the upper hand even if many thought otherwise. The loss of Smith for the remainder of the Test with concussion gave the home team the upper hand given they could score enough runs quickly enough to force a result. Anything over 200 to win and leaving 60 overs to bowl would have been a tantilising strike for both teams, but it all relied on the courage of the England captain and his belief that his bowling attack could take down an Australian batting line up that minus Steve Smith could only manage 126 runs in total in their first innings. In the end Root flinched despite the absence of Australia’s best batsman, and refused to declare until his team was safe from defeat by leaving Australia requiring 267 runs for a win, but left his bowlers only 48 overs to achieve a victory they needed. Australia’s final total of 6/154 proved only that if ten more overs were available England would have been in the box seat. I suspect captains such as Ian Chappell, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh and Michael Clarke would have declared earlier in the hope of victory. Despite Root’s words of encouragement about his bowling attack at the end of the match, his actions spoke otherwise. 

Both Marnus Labuschagne and Travis Head have again shown their tenacity and fight in the Test arena in holding off the English charge. Labuschagne had enormous boots to fill as Steve Smith’s concussion replacement, and copped his own clanger second ball. Yet he battled on and played his most important innings in Test cricket, seeing off the danger period and playing some lovely shot along the way. He seems to improve with each innings at this level. Head was fortunate to be given a life after a simple catch was shelled in the slips by Jason Roy when he was on 22, but apart from that he again played with ease and showed good defence against pace and spin. Neither of these two are the finished product yet, but they are both showing the kind of attributes that make you think they could become good value through the coming years. 

I’m not against Joe Root claiming the catch that ended up dismissing Labuschagne, nor am I against the third umpire going with the soft signal given by the standing umpires. Both of those things are fair enough. What does annoy me is that, in general in the past, those types of disputed catches are rarely given the soft signal as ‘out’, and the third umpires rarely rules in the favour of the fieldsman. And yet here this is exactly what happened, in the final hour of a Test match that was desperately trying to be saved by the batting team. I am probably biased in this thought, but you suspect that if England had been batting and a similar incident had occurred that it would have been unlikely to have been signalled out nor overturned by the third umpire. 

Stuart Broad’s continued excellence and encouraging signs on the final day from Jack Leach were overshadowed by the performance of Jofra Archer in this Test. Perhaps not since John Snow has England had a fast bowler to equal Archer’s pace fear factor. Those old enough to have seen it (not me, I’m afraid) still talk of Snow’s pace and vitriol in the 1970/71 Ashes in Australia, and how he single-handedly wrested the Ashes out of Australia’s hands. Archer, in this Test at least, has proven his equal, hitting the Australian batsmen repeatedly with an action that appears from my position safely in front of the TV screen to hide his intentions, which when combined with his pace is causing problems for the batsmen. It was fascinating to watch if not face, and in the short three days between Tests I assume a lot more focus will be put on trying to combat what he has to offer. Ball machines from 18 yards at 150kph into the body perhaps. England will be salivating at what he can produce over the rest of this series, but on the other hand the pressure on him to reproduce those kind of fireworks for another three matches may also be a difficult thing to match. 

How on earth was Ben Stokes awarded player of the match? In a game where Steve Smith refused to buckle, and where Jofra Archer’s bowling was the talk of both innings, how did Stokes get the award? A century on the final day? Yes, he batted well but not better than Smith. And he didn’t offer much with the ball while Archer was dangerous throughout. Whoever was deciding on the award should never be allowed to do so again. Rubbish. 

Changes will no doubt be considered for Headingley on both sides. Both teams have the same batting woes, and none of Cameron Bancroft, David Warner, Joe Denly or Jason Roy will be convinced they will be selected. While there are no immediate replacements for England’s woes, Marcus Harris would not be the worst selection at the top of the order for Australia. With such little time for recovery Australia will consider resting Cummins and Hazlewood to avoid any possibility of injury, even though neither will want to miss a Test. Pattinson is likely to play, but at whose expense is an open question. Smith would appear unlikely to recover in time, leaving Labuschagne as his likely replacement given his fine innings in his stead. 

The series is still wide open, and while England may feel they are coming into the next Test with momentum, they are still under the pump. Their top order is misfiring as much as Australia’s, and the middle orders are still cobbled together from bits and pieces. It offers the best opportunity for results, as it appears unlikely either team can bat for long enough to stretch a match to a draw unless like this match almost two days are lost to rain. Smith’s absence would offer England their best chance of getting back into the series, but it doesn’t guarantee it. What is certain is that the bowlers hold the key to the Test match, and the balance of their selection for both sides will be more interesting than any considered changes to the remainder of the teams.

2nd Test Day 2: Australia Holds Sway as Lyon Levels Lillee

The first day has been lost to rain, and the second day has provided an even contest come the close, and surely the result of this Test will be as dependant on the amount of moisture that falls from the sky as it does the actual contest between bat and ball on the field. If by the remotest possibility there is no further time lost in this match then a result is more likely than not. Which way that result would swing is still not certain.

Personally I thought Tim Paine took a gamble when he won the toss and inserted England. The reasons why he did were sound, but I still come from that Richie Benaud field where you bat first wherever possible. There’s no doubt that the option taken was the one England would have least preferred though. Batting first in tricky conditions with their collapse in the 1st Test no doubt still uppermost in their minds was not what their batsmen were hoping for. We’ll know better this time tomorrow if it was the best decision for Australia’s batsmen.

The dogs will be at Jason Roy’s door once again, but he got a fair delivery early from Josh Hazlewood, and sometimes you get them. The commentators again lauded Rory Burns’ innings, but he was dropped twice in making fifty and he still wasn’t convincing. The jury is still out on his future. Joe Denly made 30 but again fell without capitalising on his start. So many England batsmen have been tried and discarded over the past decade who seem to have the same fallibilities. Vince and Malan from the last Ashes series suffered the same fate that looks to be rushing at full steam towards Denly. Perhaps that’s unfair, but the number of chances that the selectors will offer their stars such as Buttler, Stokes and Bairstow will not be afforded to someone of Denly’s calibre.

Joe Root was pinned in front of the stumps where so often Steve Smith flicks the same ball past square leg. The English media and the heavy influence of the English on CricInfo have pushed Root’s claims as one of the “Big Four” of current world class batsmen, and though he has obvious class his inability to make a score when his team desperately needs it weighs against him. (Now watch Smith go for a duck and Root score a century in the second dig).

At 6/138, Australia should have had England out for 200. That they scrambled to 258 may not look to be a much better position, but with so much time already out of the game it will be important. If they had been dismissed for 200, and Australia was 1 or 2 down for 80 at stumps, the game would have had a much more tilted perspective than it does now. The one thing that hurts Australia about leaving out Mitch Starc is that there is no go-to guy to blast out the tail like he does. 

Nathan Lyon has now taken 355 Test wickets, equal with the great Dennis Lillee and now only behind Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne in Australia's wicket taking list. Once again he has come out on what is notionally a first day pitch and managed to snare three wickets. For much of the first half of his career he seemed to have an easy ride, chosen as much for his ability to hold up an end than to bowl his team to victory. In the last three years that has turned around, and he is comfortably one of Australia's match winners on all surfaces. Early in his career the 'experts' claimed he would never be able to be a Test spinner unless he developed a doosra or carrom ball or something that went the other way. Though he dabbled with it, he disposed of these thoughts in favour of a spinners best weapons - the ability to change the flight and speed to deceive the batsman, and spin the ball as hard as you can. Since he started doing this, he has become the bowler he is today. When you look at all of the recent bowlers behind him who were unable to reach Lillee's milestone total - McDermott, Johnson, Lee, Gillespie - you can see just how difficult a mark it was to reach. That Lyon has done so, and appears to have a few years left in him yet, is a remarkable achievement.

Tonight is a good Test for Australia’s batting line up. They now all have recent runs under their belt, and they must produce that to gain a good first innings lead. Khawaja looks good, and this is his moment. It is time for him to deliver and make that big Ashes century that anchors the innings, allowing his teammates to bat around him. If he can do this and take the pressure off Smith it will hopefully allow the middle order of Head and Wade to do their business as well. It won’t be easy, but it should be a great contest between bat and ball, as long as we can negotiate our way through the dismal and frustrating commentary being offered.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

1st Test Day 3: Cummins Cleans Up Sri Lanka and Stakes His Claims to Number One

He’s played just 18 Tests since his debut just over seven years ago. 17 of those Tests have come in the last two years. As an 18-year-old phenom who bowled above 150kph he had the world at his feet. His return as an enforcer who averages in the low 140kph but has all the aggression and fire to back up his short of a length attack he has been the man to find the wickets when his team needs them, but the main rewards have seemed to come to the bowlers at the other end rather than to him. Today’s cricket finally put paid to that, as Pat Cummins reaped the rewards that he so thoroughly deserves in delivering to Australia a much-needed Test match victory in just over two and a half days.

Australia’s bowlers have not been exempt from criticism this summer, though their job has been made exceptionally more difficult by the fac that they are getting on average only a couple of sessions rest between innings which makes it difficult for them to be at their best. Mitchell Starc has taken the brunt of this disgruntlement, and though it is not misplaced he is probably for the first time feeling the pressure of being the leader of the pack. Having lost Hazlewood for the immediate future he would be pushing even harder to make the breakthroughs, but presently it is not happening for him. Again today he tried hard but gained nothing. To me, as a hack analyist, his rhythm just doesn’t look right. He needs to g back and look at video highlights of the way he bowled in the 2015 World Cup, when everything he did turned to gold. Studying those will surely give him an idea as to what he did right then and isn’t doing now. If he can’t find his mojo soon his presence in either teams to tour England may not be in strife but actually appearing on the field could be in jeopardy.
Replacing Starc and Hazlewood here was the new pairing, Cummins and Richardson. Jhye Richardson continued on from his good work in the first innings, barely leaking a run while he attacked the batsmen mercilessly. He finished with 2/19 from 13 overs and was constantly threatening and proved to be the perfect foil for his pace partner. His was a dream debut, and with the promise of more to come.

The star though was Cummins, the new vice-captain of Australia, who started it all off with the last ball of the previous evening. With his second ball of the third day he had Chandimal caught in the gully by Patterson to a full pitched delivery. With his seventh ball of the day he had Mendis caught at second slip driving at a full ball again. With his 36th ball of the day he picked up Silva, again caught by Burns at second slip driving at a full pitched delivery. The significance of these wickets shouldn’t be glossed over. Cummins has made a new career out of getting batsmen out with short pitched bowling, but here on a grassy Gabba pitch with a newish pink ball he was using his old method of full seaming deliveries to pick up wickets. At his pace, and with a full slips cordon, it was a terrific sight to see. For those who have begun to look forward to the upcoming World Cup and especially the Ashes series in England, it was a sign that in these types of conditions Australia’s premier fast bowler can adjust his lengths and tactics to suit the conditions. At this point Cummins had 4/9 and was rolling.
In picking up Thirimanne, Sri Lanka’s last line of defence, with the same ball and method of dismissal as Karunaratne the previous evening, Cummins secured his fourth five-wicket innings in Test cricket. When Kurtis Patterson took one of the catches of the season, diving full length from gully to take the ball one handed while horizontal a few feet off the ground to dismiss Perera, Cummins had taken his first ten-wicket match in Test cricket, and finished with his best ever bowling figures of 6/23 from 15 overs. Paine’s stumping off Lyon to end the Sri Lankan innings at 9/139 (with the injured Kumara unable to bat) left Australia as victors by an innings and 40 runs, and the smiles everywhere were a reward for the effort.

The three days of this Test have brought a refreshing look to the Australian team, though not one that has the feel of permanency to it. The catching in the cordon of Burns, Labuschagne and Patterson was excellent, as was the fact that Australia’s bowlers were able to garner so many false strokes and edges from the batsmen. The positives in the batting outweighed the one possible negative of Khawaja again failing to deliver a big score himself. That the win was secured over an already understrength Sri Lankan team that suffered further injury concerns through the course of the match probably hasn’t been highlighted. That this team needs to do a similar job next week in the 2nd Test is also something that needs to be made clear. A win is a win and should be celebrated. That it was brought forth by a man who has fought so hard to gain full health and deliver on his undoubted promise is perhaps the best news of all.

1st Test Day 2: Middle Order Stands Up to Deliver Significant Lead

The Australian team would have been hoping for a better day of output from its batting line-up, instinctively hoping that they could bat out the day five or six wickets down and with a huge lead having been amassed. That they did not came from the excellence of the Sri Lankan bowling, especially their occasional fill-in skipper who bowled his heart out to keep them in the match and giving them the chance to now rectify what happened on the first day.

Much has been made of the lack of individual centurions in the Australin Test team in recent times, and Maruc Harris’s soft dismissal early on day two didn’t improve the conversation. Having struggled through the previous evening’s session he must have been almost as disappointed as those watching were with his method of being dismissed. Coming to the fore instead were two batsmen maligned for different reasons over the past four months.
Marnus Labuschagne was returned to the Test squad on the whim of the selectors rather than weight of runs, and his inclusion over the young gun Pucovski here had encited grumbles. Inserted at four but dropped down a place after the intervention of Ntahn Lyon as night-watchman, Labuschagne showed the kind of patience that has effectively been missing from the Ausralian batmen this summer, most notable given one particular opponent who showed its positives in his perfrromance this season. Labuschagne was happy to bide his time, and showed a penchant for leaving balls outside the loine of the stumps and keeping an eye on the swing available. Only towards the end of the first session did he take advantage of the ball being further pitched up and closer to the line of his stumps. In the second session he appeared in complete command, picking the right ball and defending well. It was a complete surprise when he popped up a simple catch to mid on with two overs to go before the second new ball to be dismissed somewhat lamely for 81. For all that disappointment, Labuschagne has shown that he does have a temperament for Test cricket. His innings apart from one show an improvement numerically every time he has been to the crease – 0, 13, 25, 43, 38 and now 81. How he fits into this team in the coming few months is yet to be determined, but further improvement over the remainder of this series and the possible introduction of his bowling will make him a very difficult man to cast off easily.
Travis Head has had his problems with loose shots costing him his wiocket when his team has needed more from him, and he as much as anyone would have realised he needed to improve this aspect. Even so, he again gave two chances to the cordon, one a typical Head flash that flew high and wide of second slip which while not technically catchable was a symptom of his rash play, and a second an edge that was dropped by the keeper caught in the middle of nowhere. Both of these chances were where Head’s weaknesses lay and yet given how hard he has fought this summer he was due a little luck, something he then needed to double up on. To his credit he did, fighting against his natural instincts to carefully watch the pink ball and feed off the energy from his partner at the other end. He raised his fourth Test half century in his seventh Test. His partner’s dismissal did appear to stall his progress after the dinner break, and whether or not it was because of his determination to break through to triple figures or not is open to question. The second new ball had proven to be another Test, and eventually his luck ran out when he was adjudged LBW to Lakmal, with the ball tracking showing the ball would have just tipped the bails off. His 84 is his highest Tet score and continues to show the class he has for the game. Like Labuschagne, more of the same this series will make it hard to cast him aside if others are deemed necessary to return in the coming months.

Australia was eventually bowled out for 323, following an excellent debut innings from Kurtis Patterson of 30 who was dismissed in the team cause of chasing late innings runs. It had been a hard slog against some good bowling which was even better in retrospect given that the Sri Lankans had lost Kumara early on day two to back ang leg soreness, as well as Chameera for portions of the day to feet problems. The warrior of the day was Suranga Lakmal who bowled himself into the ground in their absence. He rarely got his pace into the high 130kph range, but he was accurate and dangerous with both swing and seam, and caused all of the batsmen trouble. In the high humidity and temperature engulfing the Gabba he was truly magnificent and produced a number of spells that must have been up there with the best of his career. He dismissed Burns and Lyon, and then Head and Paine with consecutive deliveries, before finishing off with Patterson to claim 5/75 from 27 wonderful overs, and almost single handedly kept Sri Lanka with some semblance of being in the match in restricting the deficit to 179 runs.

They had six overs to survive before stumps which seemed a little light on by the Australians, who could have declared earlier to give them a better use of the advantageous conditions. With one delivery to go it looked as though Sri Lanka was going to survive and set themselves up for a good shot at the next day, but in a Boys Own Annual page, the warhorse Pat Cummins found the edge of the tourists’ best batsman Karunaratne and Paine accepted the chance to leave Australia elated with their evening’s work and have Sri Lanka at 1/17 in the process. It leaves them with a tough road back if they are going to push the match beyond tomorrow’s scheduled third day.

1st Test Day 1: The "One Ball" Day Has Australia Motoring

Despite all of the likelihoods, despite the loss of key personnel for the Sri Lankan team, despite another two young players making their debut for Australia, despite the fortress that is “The Gabbatior”, it was still a strange thing to see Australia dominate a day’s Test cricket like they did on the opening day of the 1st Test after the tumultuous occurrences of 2018.

The day was highlighted by one ball from Jhye Richardson in the first over after the first ‘tea’ break, and it seemed to set the agenda for the commentary panel for the rest of the day. Richardson was one of the two debutants on the day for Australia, and his opening salvo had been well received. Though he was chosen for his raw pace and ability to swing the ball it hadn’t been overly prevalent in the first session. Mendis had made a cautious start with 14 from 43 deliveries. The third ball of the session was a peach, full and finding Mendis leaning towards pushing it through the leg side. From wide of the crease Richardson’s delivery pitched on the stumps and seamed away to take off stump. It would have gotten most batsmen in the world out. It was a ripper, and the celebrations were long and loud. Almost immediately the experts had Richardson opening the bowling at Edgbaston in eight months' time in the first test of the Ashes series, ignoring the fact that he still had work to do here, along with any number of matches in all forms of the game along the way. It was however the magic moment of day one. 

Without Angelo Mathews to hold back the tide the Sri Lankans were routed in the second session. A fighting innings from Niroshan Dickwella frustrated the Australian bowlers as he treated the spectacle like a T20 fixture. His 64 out of the eventual total of 144 was massive, and saved massive blushes for the tourists. Given the way they fought in New Zealand recently they would have been disappointed with their start. 

Mitch Starc again didn’t look anywhere near his best. His rhythm is completely off at the moment. He could do worse than go back and look at replays of his bowling in the 2015 World Cup when he couldn’t do anything wrong. Perhaps it would shine some insight as to what he is missing. Richardson on debut was superb, and his 3/26 perhaps deserved better. Pat Cummins started well and finished less so, but his 4/39 is as much a reward for his bowling all summer than just here on the first day. Nathan Lyon bowled more overs than anyone and got surprising spin and bounce, both of which accounted for an unbelieving Karunratne. He bowled too fast again and would surely have benefitted from tossing the ball up a bit more. It was the slower paced ball that did for Karunaratne.

Batting in the final session under lights, the Australians survived, which is probably the best way to put it. Joe Burns return started well but was cut short by a good away swinger from Lakmal for 15, while Usman Khawaja again fell to Dilruwan Perera – his first ball of the match – trying to cut a straight ball. It is the fourth time he has fallen to him, and he again didn’t fail to disappoint. He has some work to do in his next couple of Test innings if he wants to retain his spot in the mix for later in the year. 

Marcus Harris started beautifully, but as the ball and lights took effect he found himself confused and puzzled as to what shots to play and which balls to play or leave. He had a certain amount of luck which he was probably due after the Indian series. Perhaps against the Indian attack he would have been found out, but he fought hard against the rogue conditions and finds himself on 40 not out at stumps, with a flat wicket and older ball and more batsman friendly conditions ahead of him on day two. He needs to cash in with a big innings to give Australia the boost it needs. 

Australia is halfway to the Sri Lankan total with eight wickets in hand and has their best chance of the summer to post an imposing first innings lead. There will be plenty of interest to see how Harris, Labuschagne, Head and Kurtis Patterson take their chances to make big individual scores on a good batting wicket. For Australian supporters sakes at least, let’s hope they take their opportunities.

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.

Selectors Mindgames Don't Bear Up Under Scrutiny

The Australian selectors – Trevor Hohns, Greg Chappell and Justin Langer – have named their Test squad for the two Test series against Sri Lanka in a couple of weeks, and it’s fair to say that the playbook has been thrown out the window and they are writing another one. There is little rhyme or reason about the way they have gone about the selection of this team compared to the ones that have been chosen in the first half of the summer. Certainly most thought change had to come, but how can they justify the way they are going about it? It doesn’t feel like there is any consistency at all in the way players are being chosen and that must be the hardest things for the players involved to handle. There’s no doubt it continues to create confusion for the viewing public. The selectors have their reasoning which they are unlikely to share with us, but a sharper look at what has occurred may provide those answers that are not going to be publicly aired.

Will Pucovski. 
Yes we need a kid in the team, and Pucovski appears to be the real deal. The real question is this - is it the right time? Pucovski has had well documented mental health issues. He has only been back in cricket for six weeks or so after spending six weeks away from the game to deal with these issues. He has also been hit in the head three times over the past two seasons, and though I am not aware of his health one can only imagine that these have also been playing on his mind. Leaving all of this aside, my major concern is whether or not now is now the right time to pick him in the Test team for his career sake that his health sake. My thoughts on his talent and likely importance to Australia’s cricketing future is well documented. However for some time I have felt the best way to handle him was to wait until next Australian summer, especially if (when) we were to come back from England without the Ashes. My feelings were that if that is to happen then he would miss the disappointment of that series and be away from any fallout from that loss. The new season with Tests against Pakistan and the West Indies would then be the perfect time to inject him into a team that would require rebuilding. Following his selection in this squad it is a concern about how they will handle him when it comes to the Ashes. Does he start that series or is he left on the bench? If he comes back from an Ashes tour with not many runs and Australia having been dominated, how is he handled at the start of next summer? These are the immediate problems I see. But let’s not be stuck on that for the moment. He will get plenty of support from the Australian public who will rally behind him and hope he succeeds. Whether the selectors have handled this selection well is to be determined in the next few weeks, but I for one cannot wait to see him bat for Australia in Test cricket. 

Joe Burns
What is happening in the selectors’ minds with both Joe Burns? It has been well documented (again as much in this blog as anywhere else) that he has been poorly dealt with in recent times. He made 42 in his last Test innings in South Africa after he was called over following the fall of the three involved in Sandpapergate, and on his first class form from the 2017/18 Sheffield Shield season should never have been in doubt of holding his place for the next Test series, which was in the UAE against Pakistan. He was not selected in A team that played in India where many of the batting candidates were sent, following which he was then overlooked, somewhat unbelievably, for that Pakistan tour. Then despite solid form back home in the Sheffield Shield this season he was again overlooked. Now suddenly he has finally been chosen after the tough run of Aaron Finch. The concern is that there is little solid base behind the selectors decision to decide that he was to be demoted from the Test team after just one Test back in the fold, and that his now subsequent elevation back into the Test team feels like it is a convenient time for them to bring him back so they can point their finger and say they are picking players on the basis of form. Well, only when it appears convenient to them. Don’t get me wrong, I think it is great he is getting another chance, but to me, on form, he shouldn’t have been out of the team in the last nine months. 

Matt Renshaw
Renshaw’s selection in this squad is as strange as any in recent times. Like Burns, Renshaw played in that 4th Test in South Africa, but unlike Burns he then DID go on the A tour and was then picked in the Test squad for the UAE. He was then concussed while fielding in close before Test and did not bat in the lead up match. Despite enough form in the lead up he was then left out of the Test, ostensibly because he had not had enough batting in the lead up because of his concussion and was passed over in favour of Marnus Labuschagne. It was an ordinary selection tool. On his return to Australia Renshaw has broken records in Premier Grade cricket in Brisbane but has barely scored a run in the Sheffield Shield to challenge for a recall. And yet now finds himself back in squad again, and it certainly is not on the strength of big Shield runs, which is what was used as the mantra at the start of the season for selection by the selection panel. 

Marnus Labuschagne has been retained in the Test squad but Peter Handscomb has been left out. Given Labuschagne’s Shield form was similar to Renshaw’s coming in to the BBL break – i.e. not great - it looks on the surface to be a tough call on Handscomb. Both played similar innings in 4th Test against India but one man was retained, and one was not. Is one being retained over the other merely for the fact that one bowls a bit of part-time leg spin? 

On top of these selections, what do we make of those that have been overlooked on this occasion. Do we accept Hohns saying that Maxwell and Wade know what they have to do to make Test team and that it has been clearly communicated to them? A majority of cricket watchers in Australia probably aren’t concerned that they aren’t in the side. What is a problem is that it was clearly said by Langer at the start of the season that runs in the Shield would be a major factor into forcing their way into the Test team. That now appears to be a half truth given the selection of players such as Renshaw and Labuschagne, and that the selectors once again are using the “form” guideline when it suits them, and then ignoring it when it suits other purposes. No matter what Hohns and Langer may have said, the selections made for this squad are not clear cut and the reasoning behind them not necessarily on a solid base of form and ability. Also suggesting that both of these gentlemen needs to make runs batting higher in the order is facetious. You can’t have 50 cricketers all batting at three or four in the batting order. Also, team balance is still important at state level, and states are trying to win a Sheffield Shield title not just be at the whim of what the national selectors want. The selectors in recent years have completely forgotten or ignored this fact, which is part of the reason the competition is stalling. Instead of letting the states pick their strongest teams on their own terms they are being dictated to by the selectors when they want something different. Calling the Tasmanian coach at the start of last season to have Tim Paine bat long enough to make good runs at the expense of Tasmania winning a game of cricket is a perfect example. The selectors trying to dictate to Victoria where Aaron Finch should bat in a Shield game is another. It is this kind of interference that is hurting cricket in Australia at many levels. Maxwell and Wade are both within their rights to believe their cards have been marked as ‘not to be picked again’. 

So, what is the actual reasoning behind all of this? I can speculate and offer some thoughts that I think are close to the mark. Whether you choose to agree or not is another thing altogether. 

1. Matt Renshaw and Peter Siddle have both been chosen on the form they both showed in England last season in County cricket, with an eye to them both as probable tourists in the Ashes squad. Siddle in fact looks to have been carried around all summer with that in mind. Siddle has been good in Shield and BBL as well, but in Renshaw’s case this appears the only possible reason as to why he has been recalled at this time, to get him back around the team that he will be touring with in August and September. 

2. The Test and ODI squads are being separated for their respective World Cup and Ashes tilts. Finch, Handscomb and both Marsh brothers have all been left out of the Test squad for the Sri Lankan series, but they are all in ODI squad for the three one dayers against India. Both Khawaja and Siddle look like they are getting their chance in the Indian series to make the World Cup squad but everyone else is being separated into red ball and white ball corners. 

There’s lots to look forward to in cricket during 2019, and while we can only hope that Australia’s fortunes improve on what we’ve seen so far this summer, it can only happen if our players play to 100% of their ability, and our selectors perform their duty with the same level of proficiency. I continue to have my doubts over their processes and whether it will do more harm than good for Australia’s cricket in the near future. None of that will stop me cheering on those that have been chosen, and hope that they all succeed. I especially hope that when I am at the Canberra Test match that I watch our most exciting young batsman since Ricky Ponting come out and score a glorious century.