Where to from Here? (Part 2)

In my last post, I discussed the need for stable selection in the batting.  Now it is the bowlers turn.  While they have outperformed the batsmen significantly, the selection policies around the bowlers has been poor as well.

As an example, the way that Nathan Lyon has been treated over the last six months or so has been appalling.  He has entered the last two series as Australia's leading spinner.  In India he was dropped for Maxwell, a glorified part-timer.  Yes, technically Doherty was the key spinner in the team, but the reason he was there was that they wanted Maxwell as an all-rounder.  And they did not want two off spinners, so Doherty came in as a left arm spinner, and Lyon got dumped.  Doherty is a reasonable short form bowler, but not really a test level player.  Maxwell is a batsman that bowls a bit.  The experiment failed, and Lyon returned and took nine wickets in the final match of the India series.  He was once again the number one spinner.  Except that he was dropped for the next test for an virtually unknown nineteen year old, after a third spinner, Fawad Ahmed was tipped to take his spot.

Lyon's main fault is that he will never be a Warne or McGill, nor even a Swann.  What is true is that he is a solid performer, but not a world beater.  He hasn't won Australia many matches, however a record of 79 wickets in 22 matches suggests that he is quite useful.

Where to from here? (Part 1)

In my last cricket post I suggested that the problems with Australia's batting were as much systemic as anything else.  This means that the solutions are not easy and will take time.  But what does that mean for the team right now?  What should Lehmann, and the rest of the leadership do now?

Firstly, and I can't believe I am saying this, but we need to realise that the current Ashes are not everything -after all we have a series against the world's best coming up next year.  Not that we give up.  We should fight out this series and the next.  However, we have spent the last couple years putting band aids on our problems, and taking risks especially in selection to try to pull off an amazing win.  This goes way beyond the batting, and it hasn't worked.  Now we need to take a longer term view - realising that it may cost us matches in the short term.  However, if we used the same sort of short term thinking we have in the recent past, we will need to settle in for a long time in the middle of the pack, maybe even lower.

Short of wholesale systemic change, the main area we need to change the way we work is in selection.  Our selection policy is all over the place at the moment.  Two of the eleven picked for the first test were not even in the 16 player squad.  They effectively leap frogged at least seven players to get into the team.  It is this sort of panic selection that exacerbates the problems the team is having.

In this post we will look at the selection of the batsmen, who form our biggest problem.  In the next post we will look at the bowlers, who have performed reasonably well in spite of some poor selection decisions.

I blame Hayden and Co.

The Aussie cricket team have a problem.  The problem is its batting.  That is about all that people can agree on.  Everything seems to be the reason for this problem: in separate articles, T20, the coaching structure, the selection policy and the state of Sheffield shield pitches, among others, have each been blamed for the Aussies poor batting in the past few days.  I am surprised that the GFC and global warming weren't the subject of articles -at least not that I saw.  The problem with the vast majority of these articles was that they were all looking for a single reason, and thus a silver bullet to fix it.  The trouble is that, like most real world problems, this problem is more complex than many would like.  Here we will look at some of the issues that have contributed to the problem.

Firstly, I blame Hayden and company - not that I would want to go back and change the way they played.   Matthew Hayden intimidated many a bowling attack, hitting them  to all parts of the ground.  Those that followed him often faced a battered bowling attack, and were able to score at pace.  A whole generation of cricketers grew up expecting that dominating good bowlers was the norm.  What they forget is that Hayden didn't succeed the first time he played test cricket. He went away, tightened his technique, and came back to take advantage of years of Australian domination to establish himself  as the brutaliser of bowlers he became.  He had a solid technique, a sound defence, good judgement and decent concentration, not to mention the back up of  five or six world class batsmen.  Many of the batsmen today want the domination without working on the rest.

This desire to dominate is exacerbated by T20.  It is a format that promotes big hitting.  It is also one that does not promote long innings- at best your innings lasts 20 overs.  In reality a quick fire 30 or 40 is good in this format.  An 80 at pace can win a match.  A failure is disappointing but expected given the need to throw the bat.  The problem isn't the format itself; after all Hayden and Gilchrist were champions in this format as well as Tests.  The problem is that this is now the format that many young cricketers are learning their craft and making their money.  With the Big Bucks League (BBL) players can make as much money in the T20 format as in Sheffield Shield.  The best of these can earn a huge amount in the Irresponsible Pay League (IPL).  The incentive to tighten up technique and learn to build innings is not as great.

This priority of T20 at the state level is emphasised by the way it dominates the summer.  The BBL has the prime school holiday weeks while the 50 over competition and the Shield matches are pushed to the edges of the season.  After mid-December there is no possibility to build a long innings until the end of January, or this coming summer, well into February.  I can understand that this makes the money, but what it gives in cash it robs in skill.  When players need to be learning to build a big innings, they are being encouraged to throw the bat.  After all it seemed to work for Hayden and Co.

Once they get into the test arena, the pressure to perform or face the chop is huge.  The first innings of this current series, Phil Hughes was the one who rebuilt the innings with Agar.  Agar got the headlines, but without Hughes, Agar's heroics would not have happened.  Two failures at Lord's have several commentators indicating that Hughes is batting for his place in the current tour match.  It is good to have competition for places, but there also needs to be moderation of the pressure on a batsman.  Even Clarke seems to be feeling the pressure to perform as the only established batsman in the top six.

Next time I will look at what this Aussie team needs to do two matches down in a ten match Ashes bout.

Lessons from Trent Bridge

England won a tight test.  It should have been an easy win, especially with Australia at 9 down and about 100 behind in the first innings.  However they made it closer than it needed to be.  There is much that Australia can learn from this match:

1. Swann can be played.  Twice Swann looked dangerous, once in each innings but he never ran through the Aussies even though the match, weather and pitch all seemed to be conspiring to make him the person to win the test.  As it was Anderson had to do the work.

2. England are reliant on Anderson.  He is by far their best bowler, especially with Swann underperforming.  Finn and Broad are dangerous but inconsistent.  When the Aussies put the pressure on it is Anderson that Cook relies on to change the game.  It was also instructive that he struggled with cramp yesterday.  If we can force Cook to use Anderson for 50+ overs a match, he may not last the distance, or at least drop in effectiveness.

Phil and Agar

Last night the Aussies got themselves out of a heap of trouble thanks to a virtually unknown 19 year old and a two time has been.

This is Phil Hughes' third crack at test cricket.  Both other occasions had early success (2 hundreds vs. South Africa the first time, and one against Sri Lanka the second) but soon after the flaws in his technique were exposed and he was dropped.  This time hasn't seen the stunning success of the earlier attempts, but rather he has grafted out a couple of decent scores in tough circumstances in the last few tests.  He still has a unique approach, but there is a level of grit and determination that wasn't there before. Hopefully it will last.