2013 Ashes draft, part 1: The elite

In yesterday's post, Dave Siddall (of World Cricket Watch) and introduced our first ever Ashes draft. Today, we break down picks 1 - 4.

Selection 1

Matt - there’s only one person I want with the no. 1 pick in the draft: England captain Alastair Cook.  The young skipper has an excellent record against the Old Enemy, averaging 50.36 in fifteen Tests and 69.00 as captain.  Subtract his forlorn 2006-07 campaign in Australia (against a re-ascendent McGrath, Warne and Stuart Clark) and the average races up to 98.8.  Despite the presence of Joe Root and perhaps now Chris Rogers, he is set to be the standout opener of the series.  

Dave - After Matt won the coin toss (I’m trusting him on this one), I’m pretty happy that I still have the best bowler in the series to pick. Old clichés of needing to take 20 wickets to win a test aside, James Anderson is England’s most consistent performer and his jedi-like control of swing should expose just how loose Australia’s top order can be outside off stump.

Selection 2

Matt - To see Anderson selected is a bit of a blow - I had him ranked as my second overall pick, especially given that one or more of David Warner, Phil Hughes or Usman Khawaja seems likely to play in at least the first few Tests.  With him gone, I moved onto the second-best natural run-scorer in the series, Jonathan Trott (average 86.42 against Australian attacks far superior to this one).

Dave - The greatest wicket-keeper batsman to ever represent England, Matt Prior provides quick runs to set up Test victories and a solid defence to snatch draws from the jaws of defeat (England’s recent tour of New Zealand being the most notable example). His impeccable glove-work is superior to both Haddin and Wade.

Selection 3

Matt - Matt Prior, Dave?  Wow, you really didn’t want to be stuck with Brad Haddin.  That, I can understand, but … this early?  With KP, Pattinson and well, everyone, left on the board?  This means I’m set up for my fourth overall pick, Pietersen.  With the three best fit batsmen in my lineup, this means that my esteemed colleague is likely to see Phil Hughes propping up his order … on English pitches, I’m fine with that.

Dave - My 3rd pick may seem way leftfield but the idealist in me wants Australia to be aggressive and James Pattinson is their deadliest bowler. Few of England’s batsmen have faced Pattinson and the raw aggression could give Australia an early blow that would ignite the Ashes. 40 wickets in 10 matches at an average of 23 is not far off Philanderesque.

Selection 4

Matt - Where do I go now?  This is the first real poser for me so far - I’ve got three of my first four selections with which I’m of course very happy, but now the choice comes down to the Australian captain - who on talent goes at number 2, but for his (very) dodgy back - or a bowler.  I with the only real “sure thing” fast man gone, the safest next bet is Victorian cult figure Peter Siddle, who should feature in all five Tests.  If he plays, he gets poles.

Dave - A metrosexual run machine with a dodgy back, Michael Clarke’s appetite for runs since becoming Australia’s captain has been insatiable. Rumour has it he’s not as inspirational in the dressing room than when batting in the middle. Perhaps Darren Lehman’s appointment can galvanise the squad and Clarke can focus on amassing runs.

Cricket Australia contract list: more questions than answers

Yesterday, Moises Henriques – he of three recent Tests against India – was ignored by Cricket Australia in their list of twenty centrally-contracted players.  He was ostensibly passed over for young Tasmania all-rounder James Faulkner, who earned his first Australia contract at age 22.

Although this isn't to detract from Faulkner's joy (he probably deserves the position), Henriques can justifiably feel rather miffed.  Although he struggled for much of the Border-Gavaskar series, he performed admirably during his debut Test, scoring 149 across two innings and taking 1/48 from seventeen mid-standard overs with the ball.  Although he only managed a further seven runs on tour, but he deserves some credence as these fifties were two of only twelve half-century-plus scores by Australians for the tour.  (Five of which were by players on tour for their ability with the ball – two each by Siddle and Henriques, and Mitch Starc’s 99).

Let’s leave aside, for the moment, the remarkable fact that CA breaks up their centrally contracted group of 20 players relatively evenly across three formats rather than focusing on the game’s highest form, Test cricket.  Let’s instead examine the message that this contract list sends.

It is yet another example of institutional flip-flopping by the Cricket Australia selection panel.  While Blind Freddy and his dog clamoured for the removal of Andrew Hilditch, the current National Selection Panel has been just as – if not more – inconsistent: players are called up only to be discarded one or two Tests later.  All that remains is to then be completely forgotten. 

With Australia’s Test cricket history stretching to 136 years, it’s damning that over 8 percent of all players ever to pull on a Baggy Green have debuted since 2007.

This is in polar contrast to the last three occasions in which Australia has had to build a team after debilitating setbacks.  On those three occasions (post-1984, in 1977-78 and in 1964), the hierarchy set about identifying players of talent enough to build a team around.  The players identified in that most recent down period – Dean Jones, Steve Waugh, Craig McDermott and Bruce Reid – ushered in those wonderful nineties.

This time, Australia has identified no-one around which they can build but Michael Clarke and a promising crop of fast bowlers.  Perhaps this is due to a lack of talent, but it’s more likely this is a consequence of an itchy trigger finger.

If the ultimate leadership of James Sutherland and the National Selection Panel are this inconsistent, the role of Michael Clarke, Mickey Arthur and Pat Howard is suddenly thrust from team-building to constant team integration – and hence, discipline like that famously which was infamously dispensed in Mohali.  Given his role in team selection – and the rather Draconian methods they favour – Clarke and Arthur are hardly blameless, but with such a shifting player base any concept of a unified team identity is just that – a concept.

That the selectors can't - or won't - narrow their player pool down to a promising, deserving touring part is damning and leaves more questions for themselves, and for Cricket Australia.

Short Pitch: Lessons from World Series Cricket

The following excerpt is taken from page 81 of Gideon Haigh's wonderful book The Cricket War, and describes the Australian tour to England in 1977.

Generational problems in the team had been some time coming... nine players [in the back row of the team photograph] had a combined eighteen Tests between them.  Among the team's nominal seniors ... only the captain and vice-captain Chappell and Marsh were genuinely risk-averse selections: Walters had never succeeded in England, McCosker's jaw might not have healed, Thomson was a medical miracle, and none of Walker, O'Keeffe or Davis had been first-choice players a year earlier.  Premature Australian retirements in the preceding two years had divided the team before Packer's intercession.  As Ian Davis remembers: "There was literally no middle age in that side.  You had me and Hooksey, and Serj and Kim Hughes in our early twenties, and then all these other guys round thirty.  Unless you were a very strong personality, you were just in awe of them". 

A page later, Haigh continues regarding Greg Chappell's captaincy:

The captain pined for the do-it-yourself ethos of his brother's time: cricketers who didn't need to be told ... As his virtuoso skill proved insufficient to inspire, Chappell withdrew.  The senior players closed ranks around him, instinctively protective but inadvertently widening their distance from the ranks.  Everyone felt aggrieved, nobody felt responsible, individual isolation was universal.

Sound familiar?

It's fair to say that in the dozen years following the Centenary Test, Australian cricket struggled to reclaim anywhere near its best form.  The hard-bitten culture instilled by Chappell or Allan Border has been minimised by subsequent captains who - while the logical or best choice - didn't have either the same horses to choose from, nor the psychological skills to maximise their performance.

A case in point - would any Australian dare disappoint Chappell or Border?  Recently, we saw players "try" their captain and face the ramifications.  With the most effective Australian captains of old, expectations were communicated through personal relationship, rather than rules.  It is within this environment that players like Lillee, Thomson, Warne and McGrath flourished and under which Australians traditionally perform best.

Australian cricket took a decade to recover from such a fractured dressing room.  Similar stories abound of the 1989 Englishmen and the post-Richards West Indians; one wonders whether it will take Cricket Australia another decade to understand the value of powerful and incisive leadership - on and off the field.

Simon Katich retired because Australia wanted him to

Simon Katich announced his retirement from First Class cricket earlier this week, ending a career that began when Mark Taylor and Paul Keating occupied the most coveted offices in the country. He leaves with a reputation as a hardworking player who moved up the order as his career progressed, starting at six and finishing facing the new pill.

Katich also leaves with a reputation for spirit; something which would surprise those who watched his Test debut during the 2001 Ashes series. Apart from his crablike wander across the stumps in playing each delivery, the most recognisable incidents from a long and quite distinguished career involve his 2009 bust-up with Michael “Bingle” Clarke in the sheds and his press conference last year, where he said what others dared not upon his axing from the Cricket Australia contract list.

Were he still opening the Australian innings with Shane Watson or David Warner, it's doubtable Katich would have retired. He felt he still had more to offer the Australian team and his stats backed him up. Western Australia certainly thought he had something left, as they wanted him to play 2012-13 for the Warriors.  The pay's also pretty good. 

Courtesy: crickblog.com

 The enmity with Clarke contributed to Katich's replacement and almost certainly left him jaded and fed up with the politics inherent in Australia's only truly national game. Although maturing, Simon Katich had earned his place ... only to be dropped simply because of his age.

Ricky Ponting and Michael Hussey fight the same battle every time they step onto the field. Both are older than Katich and appear near the end, but have no firm plans for retirement. When either fails, a gestalt Salomé appears, composed of a collective press, who screams persistent nonsense about ageing heads on salvers. The promise of youth is decried, a glorious future is prophesied – without admission that promise is all many Australian youngsters have to offer.

In a world culture where stardom starts early and young is better, Australia's sporting hierarchy leads the world. Since the country's failure at the 1976 Montreal Olympics, Australia has prided itself on world's best youth development; in cricket, this has manifested in the once-vaunted Australian Cricket Academy, an offshoot of the Australian Institute of Sport.

In Aussie Rules football, the dominant sport, the average age of last year's Premiers, Geelong, was 26.6 years old and considered almost supremely old. The year before, the average age of the Collingwood's Premiership side was 24. This led the expansion Gold Coast Suns to select a squad with average age of just 21.2 years last term. Players are often given only one chance and if renewal is required, players at age 24-26 are the first to go. Precious few delisted players are later re-drafted; an anonymous teen's promise now supersedes proven capabilities of the known foot soldier.

The trend has begun to reverse somewhat as veteran players like James Podsiadly and Orren Stephenson are drafted for short-term impact and clubs countenance that there is life in the lower leagues past the age of 21, but this  psychologically-straitjacketing desire for youth still prevails.

Australian football clubs have cottoned on that fans want one of two things: wins, or hope for the future. If you aren't challenging for the title, you regenerate the entire playing list on the back of high draft picks and hard work. Players emerge to stardom early, destroy their bodies and retire to the paddock of fond memories by age 31. With the success of young teams like Hawthorn and Essendon, the Australian public is prepared to sacrifice mid-term results – wholesale – in the ostensible guise of long-term progress.

This simply doesn't work on the cricket field. The best players should represent their country until their position becomes untenable. Due to the persistent averageness displayed by Phil “Snicker” Hughes, Usman Khawaja, Chris Lynn et al., Katich, Hussey and Ponting should have been left to judge themselves. Creating space for young players to grow is a ridiculous argument – if the players can't dominate the Shield, there's little or no reason to suggest they will perform consistently at Test level. Adam Gilchrist, Justin Langer and Glenn McGrath called time at the right moment – why should we treat Hussey and Ponting any different? Plus, although the dollars on offer cloud the decision, who else is better to judge?

Some athletes pick the correct time to go, while others hang on too long – here, cricketers could take a lesson from AFL players – but to simply remove Katich from national contention was ill-advised and affronting. At worst, a perilous drop in form deserves the oft-cited “tap on the shoulder”; Katich didn't receive even this much dignity in June 2011.

At least on Monday, his announcement carried a nobility not afforded by his former employers.

Australia - lacking an identity

Despite two consecutive series wins in vastly different circumstances, the Australian cricket team still tricks the eye. In one Test, Ed Cowan resembles a doughty old-school opener, capable of withstanding the best attacks in world cricket; the following, he disappears into the sheds at 1/11. During one match, Shane Watson fights indomitably for a hard-earned 80; the next, he plays over and around a nothing-ball and departs meekly. In any one series Australia is likely to employ seven different bowlers.

With victories against India and the West Indies under his belt and a reasonable layoff before their next Test, it's time Michael Clarke examined his team. They aren't super talented, abounding with youthful promise or even stocked with journeymen. The Australian team, or even the thirty-man CA contract list, has no defining single characteristic which unifies them. And it shows.

Ed Cowan - (c) Balanced Sports

Australia are a team without an identity. Without that unifying factor and devoid of knowledge of who they are as a team, the country's Test players will continue to play inconsistent cricket.

The greatest teams in world cricket history have rocked an identity which was the personification of their most dominant collective character traits. The Australians of the first half of the last decade epitomised arrogance. The West Indians they replaced as ostensible World Champs exuded a fearsome, calculating vibe. For years, Pakistan has been content with being unknowable. Flower's England has committed to twin attitudes of professionalism and preparation. Look back at every great team in history and adjectives spring quickly to mind.

With the current Aussies, those adjectives are less defining and more descriptive. Inconsistent. Journeyman. They (mostly) try hard.

On the Australian Captaincy

Steve Waugh has recently questioned the Australian selection panel in regards to their handling of the captaincy and of ousted wicketkeeper Brad Haddin.  He is well within his right to, considering his personal achievements and stature in the game.

Up until Ricky Ponting - the man whose temporary institution he contests - the opinions of most Australian captains are considered continuing testament to the spirit of cricket.  It speaks volumes of the man that Waugh's thoughts are said to represent the spirit of the game moreso than any of his contemporaries.

While Brad Haddin has reasons to be aggrieved regarding his "resting", Waugh's comments regarding the Warner/Ponting captaincy dichotomy are far from accurate.

Cricket Australia, especially post-Argus, has several structures in place to ensure strong leadership.  Although these structures are in place for a reason - in this case, ostensibly Warner's education - the fact is that he doesn't command the tactical respect of his comrades.  While Ponting's tenure could hardly be described as strong (c.f. Fabio Capello) he still inspires ultimate respect both as a cricketer and as a cricket brain.

The fact is there is no clear leader emerging to succeed Clarke.  There needs not be at this point, as the Australian captain is 30 and with several years of high-class cricket in front of him.  A second statement could be equally true: there is no need for a clear leader to emerge with Clarke at least five years from retirement.  This is especially true considering his reign as le dauphin could quite accurately be said to have destabilised the Australian team rather than the intended opposite.

Indeed there is somewhat of a leadership vacuum in those players of Clarke's vintage.  George Bailey, Andrew McDonald and Cameron White fail to command a place on form, while a possible logical successor, Steve O'Keeffe, is yet to make his mark on the national team.  Warner, who captains the Big Bash's Sydney Thunder, is the best of those in the current framework: a guy who regularly looks to hook wide bumpers the first ball after drinks breaks.

By extension, Ponting is the best candidate for the job - especially now Clarke has cemented his authority.  There should be no quibbling about the next generation or confusing structures, but the captaincy is such an award we should be careful to whom it is awarded.  It needs to reward for effort and talent, not a prize given for potential.  Do we want to be like England of the 1980s, where the likes of Chris Cowdrey fronted up to toss the coin?

Although Warner has achieved much in the past six months, he does not deserve - yet - the honour of leading his country in what was once the world's leading form of cricket.

Cricketing relationships

by Ben Roberts

I may be going to sound like Oprah or Doctor Phil, but there is clearly a deep emotional need for success in all cricketers. They cannot subsist on footwork and line and length alone, and the absence of beneficial outside relationships is quite possibly catastrophic.

Take for example the beginning of the Australian summer and the very public spat between always-fiery teammates Simon Katich and Michael Clarke. Their descent into the relationship abyss came at the lowest point of the entire Australian cricket family for years, and no one would have then believed Clarke would be the captain to lead Australia to such a rapid turn in fortunes.

But things did turn around and success has come to Clarke's Australia; along the way, Clarke has related well to all comers, in particular Clarke and Ricky Ponting have in January 2012 picked up their very productive affair, missing since they last truly connected two years prior.

Ed Cowan, (c) Balanced Sports

Not only that, but this summer the new Australian selection panel (a long-established matchmaking institution) have been rather bolshie in taking plenty o’ gambles. In Melbourne they sent absolute opposites Ed Cowan and Dave Warner on a blind date (after Warner's early summer fling with Phillip Hughes clearly was a very one sided relationship) and the two openers have not looked back. Cowan in fact has spent most of the summer gazing at Warner lest he be struck by a missile from his blade!

All this is not to mention the bond that has occurred within the Skippy fast bowlers. Although Peter, Ben, Ryan, James and Mitchell know that they all cannot be included in the same team all of the time, they clearly feel and care for each other the way they have shared the Indian scalps around.

This relational need in cricket has seemingly gotten the attention of more than just the cricketing authorities.  This article link was passed over to me recently.  The tongue-in-cheek piece may require both a working knowledge of cricket and the Book of Genesis to fully appreciate the humour, however we can add it as evidence that maybe even a divine relationship is key for cricketing success.

The author Michael Jensen lists many of faith who have graced cricketing fields. Two stuck out on my mind for the era in which they played: England's Reverend David Sheppard was an ordained minister during his international playing days and later Bishop of Liverpool.  Australia's Brian Booth was an Anglican lay-preacher. Although previously aware of their non-cricketing backgrounds, when presented with them again reading this article, my first reaction was to exclaim to myself (and Zoe the dog) about the wilder types whom they shared dressing rooms.

Respectively, Sheppard and Booth teamed with Fred Trueman and Keith Miller, whom would hardly be described as shrinking violets. I wondered just how it went? Was there precedent for the Clarke/Katich troubles? Of course my first reference point is the modern day font of wisdom Wikipedia. Looking up both Booth and Sheppard, lo and behold both have their relationships with Trueman and Miller described, including that they were full of humour.

Now I am not proposing if looking for a life partner you give up the blind dates, internet chat rooms and bar crawling and head down to your local cricket club. Such a move may not go as well in practice as in theory, but on those days when it is 42 degrees, you're in the field defending 47, and the opposition is 0/278, look across to your mate at first slip/mid wicket/cover and realise that you may be sharing more than just the old thigh pad in the team kit!

Shaun Marsh - the galling truth

On Monday, we shared a graphic detailing Shaun Marsh's horrendous form against India.  His slump has become epic - the only slump that hangs about as much in the modern memory was Ken Rutherford's near career-devastating debut series where the teen prodigy was worked over by a West Indies attack in their absolute pomp.

With Marsh, not only is his footwork weighed down but also his confidence.  In isolation, his batting average of 31 after ten Test innings could be plenty worse.  However, he finds himself in a situation where all around him have made multiple scores, making his lack of runs an even more glaring tribute to self-doubt.  But how bad is his form slump?  To find out, w need to frame his scores contextually.

Unfortunately for Marsh, a wide-angle lens does him no favours.  Each member of the current Australian top order's batting average had exemplified elements of stabilisation by the tenth innings; by each player's twentieth knock their averages had effectively stabilised.  Mike Hussey is of course the outrider after starting his career being exceptionally hard to dismiss.

 As one would expect, batting averages tend to steady as the number of innings increases - firstly because you obtain more consistent results and secondly because the player has established themselves as a Test quality player (or not).  Trends are easy to spot in such graphs - and Marsh's seems likely to steady at around 30, significantly below the Test batsman's Mendoza line of 40.

Perhaps it's not about youth, it's about situation.  Taking all batsmen as equal, the following graph plots Marsh's average since debut with all those batsmen Australia have used.

As you can see, Marsh's form has slipped below that of the particularly unlamented Phil Hughes and even below the spectacularly out of form Brad Haddin.  So it's not circumstance either.  Marsh simply has plumbed the depths of form not seen since Dean Jones in Pakistan.  It's time to move on.

All averages include the first innings from the current Test in Adelaide, but not the second.

Sixty-Six Sigma: New South Wales

Ben Roberts and Matthew Wood

Openers: Phil Hughes and Nick Maddinson

Dislodging the Australian past in Simon Katich and Phil Jacques was not easy, yet both youngsters look likely to have exciting Australian futures. If Katich opens, he deserves this position as he could well still be in Australia's top dozen most effective cricketers.

Maddinson is still only 19 years old, and has flown under the radar with colleagues like Khawaja, Hughes and Warner taking more spotlight. In seven matches last year he averaged just under 40 and struck two centuries. With such depth of talent in NSW it's easy to take a gamble on a player but Maddinson is a talent.

Hughes torments us as fans of Australia, but deep in our hardened hearts, below all the frustrations we know he can do it. Although not an exceptional season in 2010/11 he still scored 628 runs at 41. A prolonged stay in first class ranks would help the young man but is unlikely in this fast paced world of cricket.

When - if - Hughes receives a national call-up, he'll be replaced by Katich or David Warner, who broke into the Sheffield Shield team on the back of some enormous scores in the 'Futures League' under-23 competition last season. In three matches for NSW he compiled 275 runs at 45 with a century that gave hope he could indeed put what is a great eye and timing to use in longer formats.

Number Three: Usman Khawaja

The loudest cheer for an Australian cricketer in season 2010/11 was heard at the SCG in the final Test, yet Usman Khawaja merely walked off the ground in his first Test match having scored only 30-odd. But it was not the innings in particular, nor the match that was cheered, it was that finally some hope had been injected into a flagging Australian side that brought all to their feet.

Khawaja has the makings of the country's premier batsman, having the best technique and head for the job. His stints with Derbyshire and Australia A over the winter before the Sri Lanka tour were not characterised with success, but he knows how to bat and should return better than ever.

Middle Order: Simon Katich and Michael Clarke

Katich could be this generation's version of Steve Waugh - a player who has pared down his game again and again so as to make himself difficult to get out. His shuffle across his stumps should belie this, but yet he is rarely caught in front. He started as a wristy West Aussie, made his Test debut as such in 2001 and will finish his career alongside Bill Lawry as great left-handed, run-accumulating barnacles. Even though he's 36, it's likely he deserves a spot in NSW, if not Australia and shows no sign of retiring any time soon.

Australian captain Clarke recently scored a long-awaited century in national colours while in Sri Lanka. In between that and the one 18 months before in New Zealand, there had been many ground out fifties but nothing more. He is reinventing himself with the increased responsibility as more of an Border-type, gritty batsman and has eschewed the natural flair he entered public opinion with. To carry the comparisons perhaps a little too far, Clarke began as Walters and will end as Border, perhaps a function of the necessity of him of batting too high in the order.

All-Rounder: Shane Watson

Though it goes against everything we may have believed three years ago, Australia's best cricketer for almost two years has been Mr Furlong, Shane Watson. There is little point in discussing the national opener more than simply he is put in at number six rather than higher in the batting order to give the bloke a break!

When Clarke and Watson are away playing for Australia, a combination of Ben Rohrer, Moises Henriques and Steve Smith will take their places. It's likely Smith will play for Australia at some stage, but Henriques, despite big raps from a young age is likely to remain a First Class player only.

Wicket-keeper: Brad Haddin

Although Haddin's status as no. 1 'keeper for the national team is shaky, he's still without question the best 'keeper in New South Wales and could decimate Shield attacks with a Warner-like eye until he turns 40. His form is waning both with the bat and the gloves, and he's not a commanding presence like Ian Healy or even the more perfunctory Adam Gilchrist.

Young Victorian convert Peter Nevill deputises for Haddin and the gap in quality is a self-evident truth in simply looking at the pair. Nevill is functional, Haddin has the gifts but not the concentration or technique.

Spinner: Steve O'Keeffe

You know the philosophical questions that are designed to open the mind? Like 'what is the sound of one hand clapping'? Here is a new one: If Kevin Pietersen has a perceived weakness against left arm finger spinners, and Steve O'Keeffe is a left arm finger spinner and captures his wicket in the lead up tour match, why was Xavier Doherty selected? My mind is opened wide, yet I am not one jot more enlightened!

O'Keeffe is a genuine top-class spinner. He has been branded with the Mark of Hilditch Cain, apparently stamped on his forehead with "higher honours - limited overs only". It is suggested that the new panel review his shield statistics from last season (5 matches, 22 wickets at 20) and comment. These stats, let alone solid batting and a good leadership (he captained them in their last Shield match against Victoria) NSW's spinning position is his in front of pseudo-spinners Smith and Beau Casson.

Pacemen: Patrick Cummins, Doug Bollinger, and Trent Copeland

flickr.com/photos/81602598@N00/2342153225

Doug the rug gets some leeway despite a poor season in 2010/11. He is a damaging bowler when 100% fit and still worth a look in the national setup.

Copeland is exciting because he is different. For too long Australia has been developing the tearaway bowlers in the hope of unearthing another Brett Lee, seeming uncaring that Lee's First Class and Test stats are embarrassing when compared to those of Jason Gillespie and Glenn McGrath. Copeland is a quality bowler who knows his limitations and plays within himself. He attacks by playing good cricket in the mould of Stuart Clark and McGrath and fully deserved his call up to the Australian team after 2010/11.

Cummins beats out Henriques, Mitch Starc, Josh Hazelwood and Mark Cameron for the third paceman's role and may beat out Bollinger for Test duties. It's likely that two of these three will for the foreseeable future be playing Test cricket or injured, so a depth of fast bowling promise is both needed and available. In fact, in two years, the Australian fast bowling lineup could conceivably all come from New South Wales.

Who's locked in?

The greatest threat to New South Wales' players is not likely to be a lack of talent but of Australian recognition. For so long it was tacitly (until the advent of David Hookes) suggested that an Australian cap was presented alongside a New South Wales cap. Though some of those New South Welshman may not have deserved their calls-up (*cough* Anthony Stuart *cough*), there is little doubt that New South Wales has the greatest reserves of natural cricketing talent in Australia.

What's disappointing?

The the following players are available but not selected:

Phil Jacques, Rohrer, Nathan Hauritz, Smith, Nevill, Henriques, Starc, Cameron, Hazelwood, Nathan Bracken, Stuart Clark, Casson, Burt Cockley and Brett Lee. Batsman Peter Forrest saw the writing on the wall took his leave moved to Queensland for this season.

Who's next up - or alternatively, who's loan bait?

Of the fourteen names listed above, nine have played for Australia and though it's heavy with bowlers, would compete against most shield squads. New South Wales could farm out plenty of their players to get games in a loan system.

Australia post-Argus: Hope springs eternal

Ben Roberts

Trust me - I am expert in these matters. As a supporter of the Richmond football club, I have borne first hand experience of sporting teams re-births. I have lost count of how many times the jungle drums have beaten, signalling for the mighty Tigers that long-awaited success is just around the corner. 

But I have also lost count of the number of times I have been disappointed. The re-emergence of the Australian team immediately post-Argus appears different.

Ido not wish to take back my earlier remarks that until changes are made at the very top of Australia's administration we cannot rest, and I will not yet fully allow my emotions to again rise and fall with the Australian side. I also believe that we need to remain calm post-Argus as many bridges need crossing before Australia's ascent to the top of world cricket again even begins, let alone arrives. But despite only the tiniest of samples to go on, I believe we can hold hope for the future.

We have begun the Sri Lanka Test series in fine style in difficult conditions for both teams.  It is encouraging that Australia were far more willing to put their hand to the plough and get a result. I am currently observing the early period in the second Test and they have picked up where they left off.

Our batsman appear as though they may unite for the first time in 18 months behind our warrior cricketer in Shane Watson. Who would have though five years ago he would have been described as such? There are clear messages having been given, we will begin to select on form in the future, not whatever it was previously that Hilditch and Co. did. There has been further experience for the likes of Hughes and Khawaja, and a debut long overdue for Shaun Marsh. Overdue not because of previously having deserved it but because of his unwillingness to take the chances offered him, preferring like many Australian cricketers to rely on a charmed existence than a body of good runs.

We have selected a bowling lineup along a horses for courses principle. Siddle missed out to Copeland in the first two test. This was the correct decision, come a greener surface in Cape Town or Brisbane the Victorian will be best placed to take over. The spin bowling fraternity remains somewhat confused, but at least (ed: as a frustrated spinner) the skipper has more understanding of tweakers than his predecessor.

There are still glaring holes. While we seem to want to select a bowling lineup based on horses for courses there seems no end in the near future to the man love shown to Mitchell Johnson. The man they should be building the attack around is currently at the other end. Granted, his stocky and hairy torso may not look as good in a pair of Y-fronts as Mitch, but Ryan Harris is far more deserving of being attack leader and first choice.

When the former skipper flew home to witness his child's birth, David Warner was flown in as replacement. I really hope that two dozen other first-class batsman in Australia just happened to be busy at the time because I am at a loss as to how Warner, unproven at most levels but particularly first-class, could possibly be the best selected. Lets try and put the best team on the field, not invent our own version of Virender Sehwag because its more marketable.

Finally on the subject of our former skipper, If he can average 40 for the rest of his career and help guide the next generation of Australian batsman, he will have done more than enough. I am strong in my hope that he will do this - let's not get carried away that he will return to his heady best.

“Hope springs eternal in the human breast”. Below which my heart may once again be the Australian cricket sides. Just not yet.

Patience and time

by Balanced Sports columnist Ben Roberts

“The two most powerful warriors are patience and time” – Leo Tolstoy

Cricket is a game that exists and occurs while affording every respect to time. Yet the peripheral influences afford no respect and errors are regularly made.

You may have noticed that Ricky Ponting has relinquished the Australian captaincy recently. Good, you say, how could we afford to continue to be led by a man who has lost three Ashes series as captain. But take five minutes and actually review his captaincy record, he has a greater than 60% success rate in test matches and even better in limited over internationals. He won as captain the record 16 test matches on the trot and two World Cups. Of course he had the greatest 'wind up' cricketers of the generation in Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath, throw them the ball and they just did the job.

But do you really think it was that easy? Do you think that Warne was easy to captain given it was him who was overlooked for the role in favour of Ponting? Warne may have been the greatest leg spinner of all, but he was and potentially still is the most narcissistic character in and around the game. Warne also played no part in the World Cup victories, and in reality did his best to derail the 2003 tilt with his tournament eve 'diet pill' fiasco. Granted McGrath was probably not as difficult as Warne, but he was a strong character on the field and crossed the line a few times behaviourally. Ultimately as well one of the Ashes defeats included both these men in the touring party (albeit McGrath was limited in playing capacity due to injury), it just isn't a done deal to criticise Ponting's captaincy.

On the Ashes lets reflect on where this great duel was in the mindset of cricket fans. Australia walloped England again in 2002-03 and the cries for the series to be reduced to three tests in favour of extended series against stronger teams got louder. This was unlikely due to the great historical significance of the Ashes, but it reflected just how far the disparity was between the two teams. It is just a hypothesis, but I believe the win by the English in 2005 really saved the series in terms of being a competitive attraction for spectators, the Ashes now for the two countries remains the greatest prize in test cricket regardless of their world rankings. Had Ponting led Australian sides to a 4-0 record in Ashes series rather than than a 1-3 record it is not stretching it to say that he wouldn't have been exactly feted for having done so – everyone else achieved that. Certainly the inverse proportion of credit to the criticism he has actually received would not have been as much.

We cannot write obituaries for Ponting the batsman either because he remains dedicated to playing on, and playing competitively. A five minute glance at his batting record of a plus-50 test average and a plus-40 limited over average shows he is above the barrier that separates the good from the great batsman in both forms of modern cricket. He is Australia's greatest batsman of the modern era, and some would argue him being second to Bradman for Australia of all time.

As now he moves to the expected 'renaissance' like the greatest batsman of the modern era Sachin Tendulkar has had in the past year. Its worth taking time to reflect on where our expectations should lie. Let's reflect that Tendulkar had the best part of 10 years post his dabble with captaincy that wasn't to his taste before his phenomenal past 12 months. Do not hear me wrongly here – Tendulkar is no doubt the greatest batsman of the modern era, but abdicated the captaincy early to maintain his greatness with the bat. Where Tendulkar has focussed on his game without captaincy for 10 years, Ponting will have had barely two weeks before the first match. Let's then temper our expectations of how big this 'renaissance' could be, but I for one hope to see Punter in full flight once again.

In probably the greatest display of impatience Cricket Australia has barely let the temperature drop slightly on the chair before thrusting Michael Clarke the job full time. Hang on, aren't we supposed to be taking time out during this winter to review the state of Australian cricket and asking what went wrong? What would have been the issue in giving Clarke the captaincy temporarily for this brief (and meaningless without a test match being played) tour of Bangladesh pending the review of Australian cricket? Clarke would have been 90% certain to be allocated the job on a full time basis come August so why not do the due diligence and fully back him in the future knowing that all are 100% behind him? Clarke isn't going anywhere. He wouldn't dream of giving up a test career petulantly nor can he request to be transferred as he could in club based sports. The cards were with Cricket Australia and because of impatience they may have played them too early.

Australian cricket is now entering a review asking what the problems are with Australian cricket with a board not going anywhere (despite strong calls for a spill); a Chief Executive rooted in his position because of his willingness to sell the game's soul repeatedly for fast income; a chairman of selectors and selection panel who, under some illusion, think the world of themselves and still are under no pressure from their employers; a coach who is contracted for now two and a half further years; and now Clarke who probably is the right man for the job but cannot be said to have the full backing of the cricket community. Where will responsibility be apportioned for the cricketing failure be laid with so much locked in for the future?

Given great time, many seem destined to continually waste it.

The Next Great Challenge

Ricky Ponting has resigned as Australian captain. And it could be the best decision he's ever made.

Though his abilities with the wand are waning, Ponting still remains Australia's best batsman against the spinning ball and could provide a useful resource for his probable successor Michael Clarke. The decision to resign but not retire ranks with his most mature choices as a leader and is also in keeping with his "lead by example" philosophy.

In Australia it is unusual to abdicate the captaincy. Kim Hughes did so under extremely stressful circumstances, the target of a West Indies pace quartet in their pomp. He also promptly lost his place in the side. Since the war, only Ian Chappell maintained his position in the side after relinquishing the reins. Chappell, like Ponting, had the forceful personality that Hughes lacked and was perhaps still the nation's second-best bat. Ponting still has a role to play, but his time at the top had come to an end and it's refreshing to see such a hard nut accept the circumstances and bow out relatively gracefully.

There is much to like about an Australian side with Ponting not at the helm but still involved. Australia has chosen consciously focused on blooding new talent over the past four years. The bowling ranks have shown the most potential for regrowth with players like Trent Copeland, James Pattinson and Michael Beer leading the way. Cycling Australia's attack may blood youngsters with a minimum of pressure at the expense of some penetration and arguably, the nation has the fast men to back up this rotation.

It is not so with their batting. The 1960s and 1970s in Australia produced the best concentrated burst of batsmanship in history. The 1980s and 1990s seem far less promising - Callum Ferguson remains an inconsistent proposition, Phil Hughes has the eye of a magician but the technique of a lumberjack and Usman Khawaja, potential and all, is likely to score a lot of very pretty thirties. And as proved throughout the recent subcontinental World Cup, Australia struggles against quality spin bowling - or any deviating ball.

The two greatest criticisms of Ponting as Captain included his only-adequate tactical acumen and his temperament. These downfalls mean he may not necessarily make the best head coach, but because of his unquestioned abilities to inspire and teach, he may become Justin Langer's successor as Australia's batting coach. Never the erudite diplomat like Steve Waugh or Mark Taylor - or even as insightful like Allan Border - Ponting's continued future in cricket should be as a specialist coach. It behoves Cricket Australia to begin this transition now - tell him outright the last days of Ricky Ponting are to mentor Khawaja, Hughes, Ferguson and Mitch Marsh without the crippling pressure of running a team.

The Ponting full of the love of the game has been hard to spot for years now as he's been weighed down with expectations, trying to drag a fading team back into relevance. His greatest leadership contribution may not be the 5-0 whitewash of England or his masterful 2003 World Cup Final century. It could - should? - be marked improvement in the fortunes of the next generation.

Ponting Punted?

Perhaps it all came about as a result of his run-in with Steve Smith. Maybe three Ashes defeats from four have finally taken their toll. It could be that his recent form - stunningly unresembling his best - may have marked his cards. But the Sydney Morning Herald has reported that Ricky Ponting's captaincy career could be in for its most stern boardroom test when the team returns from their World Cup campaign. The current tour could be his last as Australian captain.

It's fair that Ponting's reign is thrown into question both for his recent results and on-field attitude. His ascension to the captaincy seemed a case of "right place, right time": he was the standout candidate of a middling field when selectors last deemed generational change necessary. For the first time since Ian Johnson's departure, Australia lacks a clear successor. Of course the plan was for Michael Clarke to follow in his footsteps as the best choice available, but his performances in late 2010 and charisma (that of a moose) haven't endeared him to either public or selectors. In the SMH article which brought this issue to light it is suggested his stock has recovered somewhat.

There's nothing wrong with change for its own sake. Indeed given the recent re-emergence of his always-prominent petulant streak, it could be his teammates support him because of what he was, rather than what he now is. This is an admirable position and his achievements as batsman and leader demand that acknowledgement, but the stance is quite possibly flawed. It's eminently possible that Ricky Ponting is no longer the best man to lead Australia; it may even be that he's only kept the position recently due to a dearth of suitable successors.

What Ponting must remember is that stepping aside now would not be a sign of weakness, nor a commentary on his his success as captain. Context in sport, in life, is all-important. He was charged with the difficult task of maintaining supremacy with a deteriorating team; his record reflects the challenges he has faced. He started his reign as one of a half-dozen World Class players in the Australian team and ended it the only one. In twenty years, we will not look back and say "Ricky Ponting lost the Ashes three times", though it will be true. We will say he did a good - but not outstanding - job in trying circumstances and wanted to better his record right up until the end.

He's always been honest and open, yet it could be that his tenure should end for no other reason than it's just time to go. After leading his country for nine years in the most high-stress job in the country outside Prime Minister, perhaps it is time Ponting surrendered the position. He first led the Australian Test team on 8th March 2004, meaning he could well be facing cricket's equivalent of the seven-year itch - and feels it's time to move on to new challenges but is yet to recognise and submit to those desires. His outward stance is that he's not finished. The inward position could be very different.

In the excellent ABC cricket documentary "Cricket in the 70s", Greg Chappell recounts being told by his brother Ian that he was resigning the captaincy. Ian Chappell, one of perhaps a handful of the most influential figures in Australian cricket ever, was only captain of his country for eight series over just five years; on telling his brother - and heir apparent - he was retiring he just said "Mate, when you know, you'll know". Chappelli had burned out, just as Greg would do in the early 1980s. Kim Hughes would suffer the same affliction in 1985. All three - and Border and Ponting, too - had been subjected to stresses never experienced by Steve Waugh or Mark Taylor.

Ponting's reign is beginning to resemble that of Greg Chappell: great batsmen weighed down by expectation as captain. Chappell rose above it to finish on a high, but captained Australia only in forty-eight Tests. Ponting nearly doubles that total with eighty. He's also slightly older, with a slightly more ropey technique and has nearly 360 ODIs to his name. It is fair and understandable that he is tired, tetchy and irritable.

The physical signs of stress are obvious to outsiders. Barack Obama has vast quantities more silver hair than he did only two years ago and, back home, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd have both aged markedly while leading Australian politics. The US system of government allows a President to serve only two consecutive terms for two reasons - to share power and for the health of the President. Ponting looks old and tired.

These may be the last days of Ricky Ponting. If he goes, he won't be the first or last player to be "nudged" by the powers-that-be. It's a sad way for a star to go out, but the results of him hanging on may colour his captaincy even further in gloomy shades of blue.

Tough as ... err... Balsa? Australian World Cup side needs variety

While Australia demolishes England in a meaningless seven match post-Ashes One-Day series, unexpected hope rises in a cricketing public. The World Cup is approaching and our boys - missing half the starters - are dismantling guys who embarrassed us in the Tests. Perhaps Australia really are a show to defend their World Cup honours? I mean, surely it could be worse? Absolutely it could - Beau Casson could wear a Baggy Green again. Or Chris Matthews. Or cricket's perpetual punchline Scott Muller.

But the World Cup squad of fifteen (link) doesn't exactly say "locked in", does it?

The team currently decimating the Englishmen comprises the bulk of the World Cup squad. What's concerning is it's attack, which offers about as much variety as a monk's dinner. By relying on One-Day luminaries Lee, Tait, Bollinger and Zoolander Johnson, the team has opted for pace over spin. The supporting all-round roles are filled the the team's hirsuteness bookends, man-beast John Hastings and waxer extraordinaire Shane Watson. Steve Smith also gets a guernsey but his spin bowling is on par with Cameron White's for penetration so is likely to be employed mostly as a low order pinch-hitter.

The incumbent spinner is Nathan Hauritz, the patient girlfriend to which CA selectors always return after stupid flings with the new blondes on the Domestic scene with big knockers: this time, Tasmanian Spin Bimbo Xavier Doherty. Without Hauritz - which due to injury may happen - Australia is likely to field a lineup of spinners as imposing as an mouse's member on the spin-friendly subcontinental pitches.

The pace attack looks threatening, boasting three of the world's fastest bowlers, each of whom is more - sorry - only effective in the shorter formats. Leaving behind versatility, what's most concerning is the fragility of the squad. At least five serious injury risks project as first-choice, as all of Lee, Tait, Bollinger, Hauritz, Ponting and Mike Hussey are either extremely injury-prone or under a cloud going into the tournament. The spearheads, Tait and Lee, despite being walk up starts for all or most of Australia's 115 ODIs since 2007, have a combined seventy appearances, due mostly to injury (Tait 26, Lee 44). While Johnson's physical capability is apparent, "Doug the Rug" has struggled with injury and form for the better part of six months now. Though none resemble Bruce Reid in height, ability or movement in the air, the Curse which struck him down appears to have targeted the Aussie fast men.

This World Cup is in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh which by default means the toughest conditions in which cricket can be played. Lee's history of meltdowns in India and Bollinger's last six months don't inspire confidence in the attack; Tait remains unable to bowl more than sixty deliveries a year without his body crumbling into dust like at the end of an Indiana Jones movie. To preserve their spearheads, the spear-handle is going to have to bowl quite a bit, meaning Watson, Hastings, David Hussey and Michael Clarke can all expect to roll the arm over quite a bit, an each-way bet as to what comes out: flowers or fertilizer.

Apart from Hastings, Australia doesn't really sport too many genuine all-rounders but just batsmen who can bowl if needed. And their ability with the six-stitcher may just determine how successful Australia's World Cup will be.

Target 2014

Whether Australia's 3-1 defeat at the hands of the Old Enemy doesn't really matter even though the gut feeling is that Australia's best side hasn't ever been as outplayed as convincingly as they were during this series. The Australia defeated yesterday was comprehensively outgunned and more disturbingly, out-thought.

According to Greg Baum of The Age, this was Australian cricket at it's deepest depths, it's perihelion, so heads must roll. Fair enough - but which ones? When examining the players who didn't perform - Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Hughes and Ponting chief among them - there aren't adequate candidates awaiting in first class cricket to replace them. There's undoubtedly the talent but it's either too young or too old to be considered ripe for representing their country.

The objective now must be to qualify for the inaugural Test World Championship mooted for 2014. It's only three years away and therefore it must be at the forefront of Cricket Australia's planning - to fail to qualify would be an embarrassment on a par with Canada failing to qualify for an Ice-Hockey tournament or New Zealand being eliminated in the first round of the Rugby World Cup. Only the four best Test-playing nations will be entered into that competition and it's now nearly impossible to argue that Australia form part of that quartet.

But all is not lost. To think back, four years ago England were humiliated to a similar extent by an Australian team no longer great but simply very good. Of the current Ashes tourists, seven played in the 2007 debacle. Once the correct path for regrowth is established for a nation, the regreening of their playing stocks can occur relatively quickly, especially with the amount of cricket currently played. In the next two years there are nineteen Tests against everyone from Bangladesh to South Africa and the "New Enemy" India, enough for youngsters to establish themselves and develop their own techniques coping mechanisms.

Of the seven Englishmen who returned to the antipodes this year, the only trundlers were James Anderson and Monty Panesar and Monty didn't play a match. It's the bowling stocks which needed refreshment and that's a situation with which Australia can readily identify. Ben Hilfenhaus and Mitchell Johnson must have exhausted the selectors patience by now and with Ryan Harris willing, though physically unable to be relied upon, the search for new-ball bowlers must begin in earnest, bowlers who can put the ball in threatening areas time and again. All of Peter George, Josh Hazelwood and James Pattinson have the talent and both Clarke and Ponting have shown they are serviceable leaders of fast men. There is hope for Michael Beer as the spinner designate and the sooner he is flown to India to learn from the great Indian spinners, the healthier Australian cricket will be.

More troubling is the lack of application displayed by the Australian batsman this series. Every single player got out with ill-advised shots and to a lack of patience. With questions still remaining over Shane Watson's position at opener and the longevity of Ponting and Hussey, their replacements must be young and given time to grow into their roles rather than shoehorned into position and told to perform. The focus isn't now crushing Bangladesh or beating Sri Lanka in 2011, it is ensuring that each player elevated to national player experiences the game in all conditions against the very best players the world has to offer. If a player - especially a batsman - has a future as a Test cricketer there is a good argument that they shouldn't be bothering with Twenty20. If T20s aren't played then enough space can be created in a player's schedule which could be used to hone their Test game further.

If Australia misses a Test World Championship in three years' time, the sport risks irrelevancy in the entire Pacific region. New Zealand hasn't been anywhere near the right path since several of their stars defected to the rebel ICL and Australia's slide into sub-mediocrity has been slow and painful. Change is needed, though not necessarily in personnel but in approach.