How much has Mitchell Johnson carried Australia?

This post isn't so much an answer to the question above, but a graphical comparison of how Mitchell Johnson - once so maligned, so fragile - and his fellow bowlers have stacked up over his six-Test run of supreme dominance.

Times past, the presence of a dominant bowler led to unnerved batsmen taking unwise risks against good quality flingers from the other end - it's a phenomenon noted as early as Bill Lawry's immortal tome, Run Digger when the fearsome pace and questionable action Charlie Griffith had the Australians touring the Windies in 1964-65 take risks against Wes Hall.

The alternate sees one bowler collecting on the fine work of a group - while still requiring much of the bowler, extra pressure exerted by his teammates plays on batsmen's minds and creates more wicket-taking opportunities. For examples of this, see the West Indian attacks of the 1980s and almost any Australian attack from 1993 to 2007.

This Australian attack isn't necessarily one to be feared (they had a bowling strength of 28.58 for the second innings at Centurion, a good-but-not-great score), but they do their job. It turns out they're really good at doing a job.

Just how good has Mitchell Johnson been?

That good.

Not only has Johnson lowered all the three key bowling stats since his last Test bow in last year's ill-fated tour to India, but he has (mostly) done so by an astonishing margin. For a player with 50 Tests' experience to lower his bowling average by a full 11% and Strike Rate by 10% is, well, almost unprecedented.

A truly fatal four-way

If the Australian selectors are starting to consider playing four pacemen for the third Test against India in Perth, they’re just as muddle-headed as the team they replaced. 

Let’s not go into the ramifications of kicking another promising young spinner in the teeth (cf. Beau Casson, Dan Cullen, Nathan Hauritz and Michael Beer), it belies common sense and, eventually, come back to bite Australia fairly and squarely on the bum.

Since 1990, Australia has played 21 times at Perth.  In those games, their Win/Loss ratio stands at thirteen wins, three draws and four losses.  Australia has played an all-pace attack in three of those games: in the Ashes last year, versus India in 2007-08 and in the 1998-99 Ashes series, where “Funky” Miller got the nod while Shane Warne was injured. 

Although they won the WACA match last year – and against the Old Enemy a dozen years before – they were absolutely pillaged in 2007-08 against the Indians.  This 2-in-3 success rate seems about right for what amounts to a gamble.

There are four iron-clad reasons why an all-pace attack should be vetoed with as much haste as possible.

First, Australia seems to have a great wealth of fast bowling talent at present.  Unfortunately however, the nation seems to be injuring that talent as quickly as it arrives.  With James Pattinson, like Pat Cummins, succumbing to the dread foot stress reaction, Australia are likely to head into Perth dressing the indefatigable Peter Siddle, the injury-prone Ryan Harris and the revitalised Ben Hilfenhaus.  Add a fourth to that lot (Peter George?  Mitch Starc?) and suddenly Australia’s attack, should/when Harris break down again, looks quite thin when compared to a batting lineup boasting near enough to 50000 Test runs. 

Peter George, courtesy: perthnow.com.au

This doesn’t even begin to answer the questions as to whether Starc, who looked game but perhaps overwhelmed against New Zealand, or indeed George, are polished enough for Test level at present.

Secondly, the effects of dropping Lyon would be tantamount to a slap from a wet fish.  Sure, he has cumulative figures of 2/180 so far this series, but he’s played on pitches hardly amenable to spin (Indian compatriot Ravi Ashwin has 4/298).  He’s also on track to be the best off-spinner Australia’s had since arguably since Ian Johnson, who retired in 1956.  He is worth persisting with and needs his captain, coach and even the ball-boys to tell him his place is secure.  Nathan Hauritz, though captained by a man who thinks spin is something that dryers do, was never told this.  And it showed.

This dovetails nicely into the third reason – Australia should play Lyon because he’s better-suited to the Perth pitch than to almost any other strip in the country.  While a bigger turner of the ball than Hauritz (as are many), he still doesn’t rip the ball or have quite the grip and turn of the likes of Saqlain Mushtaq, Harbhajan Singh or Graeme Swann.  What this means is that he’s a thinking bowler, and could – should? – become the Anil Kumble to Swann’s Warne, a player reliant on subtle variations … and aided enormously by bounce. 

Finally, while Australia has opted for a four-pronged pace attack in the past, it has done so when conditions merit.  Those conditions are best defined by the following questions:

           

            Does the pitch take spin - at all? 

            Will the strip break up?

            Can variety be provided by bowlers whose name isn’t Mike Hussey?

            Are the four best available bowlers pacemen? 

            If so, how far ahead of the competition/spinner are they?

            Are any of the four liable to collapse in a screaming heap?

           

Unfortunately for those advocating a fatal four-way, even the most ignorant of cricket fans knows the answer to all the above questions without even needing to think.  Australia would take a retrograde step in taking four speedsters to Perth, a step with both long and short-term implications.

#freeLyon

Patrick Cummins is the future - Or not.

Patrick Cummins is the future.

No, hang on, maybe he's not. It's Josh Hazelwood. Tall, quick, can get it to wobble about a bit. Yes, definitely Josh Hazelwood.

Or perhaps it's James Pattinson. You know, English Darren's brother. Surely he's going to lead the Australian attack into the next decade, he's already played in the coloured clothing for us. I've changed my mind, we should embrace him as our spearhead.

But then where does that leave Peter George? And Mitch Starc? Or Nathan Coulter-Nile, Jayde Herrick, Trent Copeland and Burt Cockley?

Australia has a surfeit of youthful fast bowling talent at present. Not just young fast bowlers, but - on current evidence - good ones. This is a source of much-needed encouragement given recent events in the Baggy Green as defeats to pretty much everyone again conjure memories of all the West Indies lost in their regression from behemoth to basket-case.

Cricket in Australia is far from being completely turned around - in fact, it still may not even be going in the right direction. But CA's done everything it can - commissioning a report to put down in ink what any observer already knew. And the country has raw fast bowling talent to choose from - and it is that which is most crucial to a successful cricket side. The oldest of the fast bowlers named above are 25-year olds Copeland and Herrick.

Why so excited? Every successful postwar cricket team has had pace firepower in abundance. The Invincibles steamed through England behind Lindwall, Miller and Johnston; England of the fifties unleashed Statham, Trueman, Bedser and "Typhoon" Tyson; the West Indies speed vanguard often left their batsmen with little to do and Australia's dominant decades came as a result of the toil of Lillee, Thomson, McGrath and Gillespie.

Fast bowling talent wins games, not bowlers who send it down fast. And there's a difference between the two: Patrick Patterson was outrageously quick, had one of the great intimidatory attitudes, won a few of games for Jamaica and the West Indies, but never amounted to much. The same could be said for Brett Lee - you always felt he should have been better than he was.

There hasn't been this many exciting young Skippy flingers since the mid-eighties where from 1985-1988, Merv Hughes, Craig McDermott, Tony Dodemaide, Chris Matthews (!), Bruce Reid and Dave Gilbert were all young and clamoured for Test selection.

Both the West Indies and Australia have eloquently proved that when fast bowling talent makes way for people who bowl fast (*cough* Mitchell Johnson *cough*), teams quickly begin to lose matches. Most importantly, Pace talent means time not batting is spent attacking a position, rather than defending one. A quality pace platoon also excites onlookers and relieves pressure on their run-scorers. On a broader scale, it also infinitely strengthens batting on a national scale and means Moises Henriques will never play for Australia again.

England's transformation from also-ran to world champion came on the back of talented fast bowlers the ilk of Flintoff, Simon Jones, Bresnan, Finn, Tremlett and Anderson: each is/was able to combine discipline and an ability to make the ball "talk" with swing, seam or bounce. With a combination of some of the talent above, Aussie fans hope the same will happen in the Antipodes.

Australian punters (no, not that one) are excited about nascent fast bowling talent because since that fateful Sydney Test of 2007, the country's bowlers have lacked a leader. The plan was for Stuart Clark to hand over to "Notch" Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus, which worked about as effectively as a a K-Tel nostril hair trimmer. The hierarchy hopes for a leader to whom they can turn when in trouble: a guy who gets the ball in the right spots to either restrict runs or take wickets.

Any of the current tyros may, in time, be that guy. But to expect Cummins - or anyone else, for that matter - to be a sort of proto-Mohammed Amir is unreasonable, unrealistic and more likely to produce a Lee than a McGrath.

The central board must keep two simple, everyday truths in mind: You almost never find what you're looking for until you stop searching and anointing young, unproven leaders rarely works. This is why Cummins, Copeland, Hazelwood or Pattinson shouldn't be anointed as the next leader of Australia's bowling attack until they have earned that position.

All of our past leaders have had to learn from experience: McDermott, while in his ostensible prime surrendered his Test berth to Dodemaide and Chris Matthews. McGrath emerged only after McDermott's injury - when absolutely noone saw it coming, least of all the West Indies lower order. The term "King-maker" is the epitome of a self-aggrandization, used only by the extraordinary vain and is based upon the flawed principal of anointing unproven "chosen ones" at an early age. Leaders emerge as circumstances allow.

More appropriately, leaders emerge when they conquer those circumstances. McDermott had to conquer immaturity and the stigma of being a ginger kid. Lillee overcame a crippling back injury - twice. Shane Warne fought an unlikely combination of playboy lifestyle and massive girth. McGrath had to rid himself of that horrible haircut.

It's possible, perhaps even likely, that Cummins, Hazelwood, Pattinson and Copeland will all be top-draw seamers. Especially, calling wunderkind Cummins a saviour and future leader is placing remarkable expectations on young, still-developing shoulders. Let him learn. Let him grow into his frame, his profession and international cricket.

This post was originally published on The Sight Screen.

Sixty-Six Sigma: Western Australia

Ben Roberts with Matthew Wood

Openers: Shaun Marsh and Wes Robinson

His selection and immediate success in the Australian test team speak for themselves, but Shaun Marsh enjoyed a strong Sheffield Shield season despite being available for only four matches. He averaged 59 with one ton in his 414 runs. Chances are he won't be available for much Shield cricket this summer with higher duties calling but he is of course WA's number one opening batsman.

Wes Robinson was a late starter, having been selected at almost 28 years of age to debut back in 2008. Now nearly 31, it is unlikely that he will push to be selected by the national teams and faces competition from Liam Davis to open with Marsh and/or 19-year old phenom Marcus Harris. Robinson protects the middle order, but does so at an almost glacial pace.

Number Three: Marcus North

Converted opener North is likely to feature at three for the Warriors this term in the absence of a true lynchpin. Both North and Adam Voges have skirted (North more successfully) the fringes of the Australian teams, offer dibbly-dobbly off-breaks to relieve the fast men into the Doctor, and will have to compensate for the loss of Luke Pomersbach, who's taken the year off for mental health reasons. Travis Birt could also enter the equation here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clivemoore/6250052095/

Middle Order: Michael Hussey and Adam Voges

One keeps on keeping on in the Australian XI. The other was given his marching orders and can focus on leading WA back to the top of the first-class game. When we doubt him, Hussey almost always speaks for himself - he clean swept the MOTM awards in Sri Lanka and picked up the series title as well. He won't play much though, so Birt or Mitch Marsh are likely to bat here.

Voges' reputation behoves better performances than those he's delivered. Once the power-hitting no. 4 of the future, he's now lucky to retain his place amidst youngsters like Marsh the Younger, Birt, Tom Beaton and Cameron Bancroft. He and North are nearly interchangeable - they average around 42 in First Class cricket, are 32 years of age. Where North's strength is as a leader (surprise, surprise, Australia fans!).

Voges is a respectable bowling average of 34. He's still in WA's top eleven, but only just. Leadership can buy a cricketer more time - think of Mark Taylor's horror run - so expect Voges to struggle for his spot before his captain does.

All-Rounder: Mitchell Marsh

By the age of nineteen, Geoff's younger son has become a bit of a great white hope in Australian cricket. Now, he represents his country, albeit in T20 colours. The hope is premised more on what he does in those coloured clothes as despite a maiden first-class century in 2010/11, he didn't do a whole lot either with bat or ball. Look closely at him this year, Australia, he could still be playing in 2028 or so.

Wicket-keeper: Luke Ronchi, but only just.

Like a number of players in the WA squad, he's been tried and discarded by the Australian team. Ronchi is hard-hitting bat whose form and technique has rather deserted him in recent seasons. Understudy Michael Johnson didn't do a whole lot in his two chances last season, but started the recent first class game against Tasmania.

Spinner: Michael Beer

Until last season, no-one had ever heard of Beer. That was until Shane Warne happened to mention his name and Andrew Hilditch took notice*. A full season (10 matches) for WA had the St. Kilda graduate (see where Shane got the name from?) take 21 wickets at a high average of 46. What stood out about Beer, despite no better than average figures, was his willingness to attack, give the ball flight and create doubt in the batsmen's mind.

Pacemen: Mitchell Johnson, Nathan Coulter-Nile, and Ryan Duffield

I question the ongoing permanence of Mitchell Johnson in the Australian test team, but he remains the leader of his adopted state's fast bowling attack. Despite myriad frustrations with him, we still know that he can turn on an amazing show when he's got his mind right. The Doctor only helps him, as his remarkable 9/82 in last year's Ashes proves.

Coulter-Nile and Duffield are youngsters who delivered exceptional numbers in 2010/11. Coulter-Nile's 21 wickets at 22 in four matches and Duffield's 33 wickets at 23 in seven matches pushed the 31 year old Michael Hogan out of the side. Coulter-Nile has been in particular singled out for high praise from coach Mickey Arthur, who suggests he's the only player in his team "locked in" for future Australian caps.

Who's locked in?

The pace attack is strong, and given its youth is unlikely to shift except for higher honours or injury. The same can be said for Shaun Marsh and Michael Hussey. Mitch Marsh must play, as must Beer - should he not displace Nathan Lyon for an Aussie spot.

What's disappointing?

The failure of Luke Pomersbach to come through as a truly top-end talent is sad for multiple reasons - not least his continuing battle with mental health issues. Mitchell Johnson's Australia tenure isn't over yet, but neither is it on as solid a footing as pre-Ashes.

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

Nathan Rimmington backs up the pace attack with Michael Hogan. Young batsmen Tom Beaton and Cameron Bancroft will be the next picked, while both Ronchi and Michael Johnson could cement the keeper's position with a good season.

* For the purposes of politeness, we have refrained from including our usual explosive swearing when he who shall not be named was, in fact, named.

Back to Sixty-Six Sigma homepage.

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.

Cricket Australia: Sitting on the Fence

"The time is coming where you have to choose between what is easy, and what is right"

Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

It didn't take a rocket scientist - or a banking executive - to figure out that Australian cricket has both structural and talent issues. A 4-1 thumping in our last Ashes series, mediocre World Cup campaign and a captain with a positively Reiffel-esque batting average over the past three series (21.5) is proof enough for anyone with even half an eye and a tenth of a brain that Australian cricket has reached its lowest point since 1985.

While Ricky Ponting's tetchy leadership, Mitchell Johnson's latent outswinger, Greg Chappell's insistence on youth and Andrew Hilditch's residence in a fantasy world have contributed to this state of affairs, the root cause lies with James Sutherland and Cricket Australia. For too long they have tried to have their cake and eat it too by chasing the financial gains of Twenty20 and also lauding a the benefits of a competitive Australian Test squad.

By chasing both, they will achieve neither.

On one hand, commissioning Don Argus to report on their cricket management structures sounds good, even curative. But doing so while the other hand throws so many resources into the nascent Bigh Bash League (BBL), Cricket Australia is endorsing two policy decisions which negate the other. It is another curious leadership decision from CA whose actions indicate they are chasing the Goose that lays the Golden Eggs while paying only lip service to Test standards.

For much of the past twenty years as pitches become more standardised worldwide, cricket has degenerated into two groups: the "haves" and "have-nots". The "haves", fuelled by television revenue, good attendances and growth economies include the regular suspects: South Africa, England, India , Australia and perhaps even Sri Lanka. The second tier includes fallen powers West Indies and Pakistan, as well as New Zealand, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.

More accurately, these two groups could now be defined by the cricketers they produce. The West Indies' best now favour the shortest form, while the best of New Zealand, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe often eschew their nations to tour the world as T20 guns-for-hire. The fundamentals of creating world-class players in both formats require player pathway systems so different that only the mega-wealthy institutions in world cricket can afford the time it takes to do so.

courtesy: telegraph.com.au

World cricket hasn't so much been divided along lines of Test quality, but on the type of cricket on whcih each nation has focused. If kids are developed where T20 is prioritised, it results in a bunch of individual talents and a poor Test team. Where a Test technique can occasioanlly benefit T20, the reverse is rarely, if ever, true. To acknowledge any speculation David Warner has what it takes to play Test cricket exists is to question the value of life itself - the man bears as much resemblance to a Test opener as my 94-year old grandmother.

By dividing it's attention between a Big Bash league with privately owned franchises (eeeugh - I hate that word in relation to cricket) and an Argus report recommending that the best 66 players play Sheffield Shield cricket at any one time, Cricket Australia is, dividing it's resources in an attempt to promote the game. By doing so, they've ignored the great rule: punters love success, and in Australia that means a strong Test team.

If Divide and Conquer still applies on the battlefield, so too is it effective in the marketplace. CA has already done the dividing, leaving it now open for conquest by a crowded Australian sports market which asks supporters to invest more than ever.

Let's not forget that private ownership as a model has only worked in Rugby League and never in the long term for any other sport. In fact, News Limited, after pioneering SuperLeague, now still owns the entirety of the Melbourne Storm and North Queensland Cowboys, as well as 69% of the powerhouse Brisbane Broncos. Rupert Murdoch, like Packer before him, got what he wanted out of setting up a rival competition. The hideous failures far outweigh that partial success as the names Christopher Skase, Dr. Geoffrey Edelsten, Eddie Palmer and his beloved Brisbane Bullets and the Victoria Titans weigh heavily on Aussie fans' consciousness.

courtesy: news4u.co.in

The heavily-publicised BBL, intent on chasing dollars, imports the likes of Kieron Pollard and new fans will involve suspending first-class cricket during December, Australia's busiest Test month. How can Australia rebuild with the best First Class talent they have when that talent is not receiving games?

Cricket Australia has been forced into a position that all cricketing countries now must face: chase dollars, or what you feel is important. It's a nice coincidence when those options are one and the same. In Australia's case, that is unfortunately not the case. While paying lip service to the importance of Tests, CA has done everything but say "we're here for the dollars" by instituting a flawed BBL model at the expense of First Class cricket.

courtesy: zimbio.com

Only four years ago Austrlaian domestic cricket was the strongest on the planet - now no more, as players chase the dollars (and no-one's blaming them). Australia simply can't follow the Indian model (IPL) because there isn't enough support - or money - to go around. That Australian domestic cricket - or more crucially, given how many eggs are in it's basket, the new BBL - can't get a look-in on free-to-air television is a damning indictment of what Australians think about the grass-roots. Cricket captures the imagination in the backyard, when Australia plays and never through the likes of Gary Putland and the Melbourne Stars.

CA, to use the most cliche of cliches, is trying to have it's cake and eat it, too. Rather than committing - by dint of playing talent (like England has with Tests) or financial need (as the West Indians have done with T20), Australia continues not to choose its battles and try to succeed at everything.

The smaller countries of the world faced this challenge first, as New Zealand and Bangladesh have all but admitted for years that their best chance of attaining any success has been in the One-Day arena. Why else would players like Scott Styris choose to retire from Test cricket but not from the short format? Pakistan and the West Indies are already producing more guns for hire than good quality Test players. It's saddening to realise that the same is true of Australia.

As India wrestles with the impending doom brought about by Tendulkar, Dravid, Sehwag and Laxman's respective entries into Valhalla, even that powerful nation will, in time, face the same challenge. While England will not remain immune forever, the structures in place around the game in it's birthplace may allow a defence against the irrepressible schism that threatens to divide cricket.

It's true of any business struggling in a crowded economy that you should choose either to expand your services, or focus on doing what you do best. For 125 years, Australia has produced the best Test cricketers in the world. Over the past decade, that trend has been reversed as players are seduced by the quick runs and quicker bucks available.

In a recent revealing podcast on Test Match Sofa, Australian cricket writer Gideon Haigh revealed that the first priority of the Australian cricket team wasn't to win matches but to publicise the sport in Australia. When it comes to branding - the honeypot into which Cricket Australia has fallen - it is a simple fact that Starbucks produces coffee, Asics produces quality running shoes, Sri Lanka will deliver turning pitches - and Test cricket has been elevated to its highest form by teams from the Great South Land.

For Cricket Australia to forget that would be shameful.

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.

Selectors must demand accountability

With the two additions to Australia's squad for the second Test being fast bowlers, questions now hang over the future of Mitchell Johnson and to a lesser extent, Ben Hilfenhaus. Both pacemen were unable to perform at the 'Gabba and by selecting Ryan Harris and Doug Bollinger the selectors have stated flatly that only by achievement does one maintain their position in the Test team.

This is a long overdue standard for Australia to discover: for too long players have kept their spots because "They have class" or "They need experience" or "They have potential" amongst any other number of reasons. No matter what the sport, the best teams in the world place selection pressure on the incumbents from outside the "first team" - players on the fringe trying to force their way into the team. The simple result of this is those who stay in the team do so by way of their performance. Perhaps the best example is of Collingwood Football Club in Australia where coach Mick Malthouse has inspired incredible performances consistently over recent years from youthful ranks simply by rewarding good form. A player stays in the team only if he is able to do the job assigned to him and the Magpies youngsters have responded in spades. Say what you like about Collingwood's outward attitudes but their youth development has been amongst the best in the AFL for a decade now.

Whether Australia deigns to make changes still remains to be seen as the selectors have played this gambit before only for no changes to be made. With a change in selection panel and with an increased role for Greg Chappell maybe this week is the time it changes and Doug Bollinger replaces fellow left-armer Johnson as Australia's strike bowler. Unquestionably unfortunate to not play in Brisbane, Bollinger adds more grit to the lineup at the expense of pace and unpredictability. Harris, Clint McKay (VIC), Peter George (SA), Luke Butterworth (TAS) and New South Welsh pair Mark Cameron & Trent Copeland have all got legitimate claims both to good form and the potential to succeed for Australia so the fast-bowling stocks aren't thin at all.

The strongest message of accountability would be to simply drop "Zoolander" as he hasn't performed for Australia since the 2009 tour to South Africa. Like any other successful sports team, their motto has to be "Play well or we'll find someone who will". With the Australian team so long regarded "Harder to get out of than into" - except for Brad Hodge in both cases - it's long past time Australia stopped suffering sub-par performances in the name of style, elegance or explosiveness.