Cricket Redux, or, The Captain's Summer Opus



Watching Australia disintegrating in The Ashes thus far, and a week of back and forth emailing with Big League friend Rave-On, made it clear that Cricket Australia is in dire need of some direction. The current Test batsmen (except Clarke and Watson) are all declining/ageing at the same time and the bowling line-up is being changed more often than brothel sheets.

The selectors, continually find new and exciting ways to fuck up, clearly don’t know who the best fast bowlers are, whom the best spinner is, or who’s ready to bat at Test level. And not only that, but Australia’s most consistent batsman, and probably bowler, is batting out of position as an opener.

Meanwhile, the preparation to win back the Ashes involved playing Twenty20 in Sri Lanka while England was playing 4-day games and acclimatizing to Australian conditions.

The selection, coaching and captaincy are all impatient, indecisive and ineffective. They’ve made more bad choices in the past 12 months than Lindsay Lohan. It’s time for Big League to fix Australian cricket.

I’m not going to get into technical or coaching issues too much, (and really, how can anyone improve on Mark Waugh’s contribution to the bowling plan in a pregame meeting: “Hit the top of off-stump with the occasional bouncer… I’ll be in the TAB”) and I will try and break down my ideas for each form of the game.


Twenty20

In 2005 Australia and New Zealand played the first international twenty20 cricket match with somewhat of a “piss-take” attitude; players wore 1970s gear, grew moustaches, had nicknames on their shirts and generally appeared not to give a shit (Glenn McGrath bowled an underarm delivery for Christ’s sake). When this ultra-short format became the world’s most popular version of the game 12 months later, Australian cricket were completely unprepared and ended up essentially importing the 50-over team (which not long before had essentially been the Test team) and then pretending they didn’t care.

Cricket Australia now adjusts its team, with T20 specialists such as David Warner, but still too many players from the Test and 50-over sides are featured (Michael Clarke should not be allowed within 100 feet of this team). By its nature T20 is hit and miss, and senior players have little to gain and form to lose, especially those who did not develop with T20 as part of their schedule.

Current Test players in the T20 side, Michael Clarke, Peter Siddle, Brad Haddin and Shane Watson, should be kept out of T20 and either rested or playing Sheffield Shield (it’s important International level players play State cricket regularly, allowing State talent to develop by playing with and/or against the best). And besides Brad Haddin, none of the current Test line-up are suited to the game anyway. Someone like Dirk Nannes, for example, may never be a good Test level bowler, but he’s a much better T20 option than Doug Bollinger.

But the team will need some experience stability, and leadership: Enter Brad Hodge. A former Test and 50-over a veteran, not to mention arguably still Australia’s best T20 player, Hodge is brought in as a permanent fixture and made vice-captain. This rewards Hodge’s years of toil and allows younger players earmarked for leadership to be given captaincy opportunities at international level, giving selectors further data on our state level players. (And once Hodge is retired a similarly experienced player would take over this role – Cameron White, for example.)

The rest of the team is selected as a young, almost “25 and under” side, with a rotation policy to accommodate local talent; for example, more Western Australian players in the team for games played at the WACA. This would encourage locals to attend live matches, would let players know that everyone is being looked at for national duty and would also provide the team with players who have home ground knowledge. It would also lessen the player’s workload and travel (a common gripe) and keep CA’s domestic travel costs down. Perhaps the saved money, not to mention the extra revenue created by playing locals, could be spent on larger international touring parties, ensuring squad depth and further exposure to international opponents, conditions, climates and cultures for developing players.

The National Twenty20 team may look like something this: Dave Warner, Brad Hodge (VC), Aaron Finch, Mitch Marsh, Matthew Wade (WK), Moises Henriques, Cullen Bailey, Josh Hazlewood.

With the following players (25 or under) that could rotate in at each state: Jon Holland, James Pattinson, Alexander Keath (Vic), Mark Cosgrove (Tas, and admittedly, 26 years old), Allister McDermott (Qld), Peter George (SA), Nathan Coulter-Nile (WA), Steve Smith (NSW).

Given injuries, availability, conditions and team balance obviously the 25-year old rule is only to be used as a guide. Players such as Steve O’Keefe, Aiden Blizzard, and Ed Cowan could, and should, be used. And, depending on other international team commitments, T20 specialists such as Cameron White, Dan Christian Dirk Nannes and Shaun Tait should be made available, and again, especially at their home grounds and for priority tournaments, like the T20 World Cup.

This could also potentially allow Australia to simultaneously field a T20 and a Test team anywhere in the world. This would not only add another revenue stream to CA’s coffers, but would avoid the situation we had this summer where England was preparing in Australia while the Aussies were playing essentially meaningless T20 cricket against Sri Lanka.


One-Day Cricket

This team would be the melting pot, featuring the best performed of the above T20 team, Test hopefuls pushing their claim and the suitable members of the Test team. (Although, it actually wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, nor completely implausible, if Australia ended up with three completely separate teams.) The current rotation policy would remain in place with the T20 “play the local” rule clearing up any selection dilemmas.

The 50-over game, as opposed to T20, gives batsmen time to build an innings, and requires bowlers for longer, more focused spells, making it a better rehearsal for Test cricket. It is no surprise that many players have forced their way into the Test side with great 50-over performances (Andrew Symonds springs to mind) and this is exactly what the One-day side should be used for.

South Australian batsman, and sometime opener, Michael Klinger, for example, made plenty of runs at domestic level last season (1203 runs from 10 matches, state player of the year) but do we, and importantly the selectors, have much idea how he would do opening at Test level? Wouldn’t you rather see him get tested against the South African new ball attack in a 50-over game than scoring another ambiguous 80 against Queensland and James Hopes’ pies? I mean, wouldn’t it be informative to see how he handles world-class opening bowling and international pressure? (Yes, that’s rhetorical.)

Excluding the current Test team, and including a select few from the above-mentioned T20 squad, there is a fairly handy pool of players that we don’t know enough about at International level:

Openers: Shaun Marsh, Phil Hughes, Phil Jacques, Michael Klinger, Ed Cowan.

Middle-Order: Callum Ferguson, Usman Khawaja, David Hussey, Rob Quiney, Cameron White, Adam Voges, Travis Birt, Mark Cosgrove, George Bailey.

Keeper: Tim Paine, Matthew Wade.

All-rounders: Dan Christian, Andrew McDonald, Moises Henriques.

Fast bowlers: Ryan Harris, Doug Bollinger, Shaun Tait, Clint McKay, Mark Cameron, Brett Geeves, Dirk Nannes, Mitchell Starc, Peter George.

Spinners: Jason Krezja, Nathan Hauritz, Xavier Doherty, Steve Smith, Beau Casson, Cullen Bailey, Steve O’Keefe.

Using exclusively that list, an extremely competitive one-day team could be fielded and selectors would gain valuable knowledge about who is up to it at International level. So, rather than plucking spinners like Doherty and Beer from obscurity and putting them to the sword, guys like Krejza and Smith and Bailey and O’Keefe all would have played for the National team (using the rotation/home ground system) in one-day and T20 cricket and would be ready to go.

The longer the version of the game, the more important it is to keep some continuity but perhaps having one or two “open” spots wouldn’t be a bad thing. The idea is to continue to expose players to the next, higher level of competition, so that when a spot opens up, there is a pool of talent with at least some experience ready to step in.

Players should also know that they’re part of a larger squad and, rather than being simply in or out of the team, that rotations will occur and as along as you keep working and performing for your state you’ll get your chance soon enough; it is important for young players to know they’ll be given time.


Test Match

The age and balance of the Test team needs to be monitored carefully so that any mass exodus of same age players, as is currently pending/beginning, can be avoided. To this end, the Test team should attempt to feature at least one younger player at all times, especially when surrounded with experienced campaigners. This was how Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke were allowed to get their feet wet at Test level.

Since then, however, selectors have been slow to include new talent. Batsmen who have been beyond proven at State level, such as North and Hussey, were given the nod at such a late stage in their career that by the time they have a decent trial at Test level they are almost due to retire. Marcus North, for example, has played 21 Tests, is 31 years old and seems done at Test level, while, conversely, Alistair Cook is 25, has played 62 Tests and is in the best form of his career – with another five of six years ahead of him.

The North selection was defensible (he made a staggering amount of runs at State level, bowls handy off-breaks and has excellent hands) but it just came too late. Would it have been better spending those 20 Tests on someone like Phil Hughes? The Alistair Cook example would suggest so.

This is also why someone like David Hussey should be overlooked for the Test team; yes, he probably deserves a chance, but it will not serve the long-term interests of the team. Every chance should be used to blood youth, be it dead-rubber Tests, injury or suspension.

Successful test cricket is all about pressure; the fielding team has to apply it for long periods and the batting team needs to withstand it and then counter punch. Being able to perform consistently usually come when a player is able to combine knowledge, skills and having been in similar scenarios before all tied together with self-confidence, a.k.a. experience.
Administration, policy and selection for all three forms of the game (T20, One-day and Test) needs to be integrated to deliver some form of continuity to the teams while also exposing promising players to international competition to continually be building their experience base.

In my system each form of the game would feed the next, from shortest form of the game to the longest, trickling down the nations best young players through the T20 and one-day teams to prepare them for Test cricket. However, some players are suited to different forms of the game and therefore State cricket needs to be monitored closely and the International players need to be more involved with those teams. I know I’d be much more comfortable picking Michael Beer if he’d been performing well in the one-dayers or had consistently troubled the Australian top order in Sheffield Shield.

Finally, here’s my attempt at a team for the third Test:
Phil Hughes
Mike Hussey
Ricky Ponting
Shane Watson
Michael Clarke
Usman Khawaja
Brad Haddin
Mitchell Johnson
Ryan Harris
Jason Krejza
Ben Hilfenhaus

(Note: I’ve been trying to finish this blog for weeks now but it just kept getting bigger and more rambling and I couldn’t quite get in under control. In the end I gave it one last edit and posted it just to get it up and away from me. So, my apologies about the length, possibly not explaining things well enough or repeating myself... Good times!)