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.

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.

How good can Australia be?

The cricket world waits on a strong Australia. In dark times for the masses, hope is required and, for the first time since 2009, Australians wait expectantly on youth. At that time, that promise rested on Peter Siddle, Mitchell Johnson and the slightly rounded shoulders and plate-sized eyes of Phil Hughes. Now, two years hence, w are intrigued by Michael Beer and happy about Usman Khawaja's Test debut. His bright 30 at the Sydney Test wasn't outstanding, but a fillip for youth development in the country.

Remembering Peter Roebuck

Peter Roebuck is dead. Obituaries have flowed, ranging from describing his awkward manner to his favourite straw hat and everything in between - relevant or not.

His death has come with the greatest outpouring of words cricket has seen for some time about one man. When Hansie Cronje died, the internet was still a pre-teen; when beloved commentators died more recently - Fred Trueman, for example - they were remembered with a smirk, a grin and tales of "Aye, and 'twas wasted on thee". Was Alan McGilvray or Brian Johnson remembered so vividly?

Courtesy: Guardian.co.uk

Why contribute further to this internet verbosity? How best to pay respect to one of your writing inspirations? Peter Roebuck is best remembered by his writing, because the complexity of Peter Roebuck tha man was exemplified best in that commentary.

His last column, "No dumpings for the sake of it", was published in the Australian Fairfax media group on the day of his death. It detailed possible responses to the Australian collapse on day two of the First Test at Newlands. As always, his work succinctly summed up what no-one else had thought to: Australia's batting had failed not once but twice; Shaun Marsh's back condition isn't likely to improve and that any potential Australian replacements (David Warner?!) aren't unlikely to be ready or perform better.

He preached measured action. Perhaps his most famous column, coming in the wake of the fractious Sydney Test of 2008, called for Ricky Ponting's head on a platter. Though shouted down by many, this was again a call for measured action. He reasoned the results of Ponting's tetchy captaincy would impinge the spirit of the game. When you read Roebuck, you read foremost about the spirit of the game.

That spirit, however, took him all over the world, surveying and annotating the most nuanced game of all. That he has since been called the "Bard of Summer" sits perfectly.

There's a saying in sportswriting: don't use adjectives. They lead the reader unnecessarily when your words should be able to paint a picture without resorting to blunt instruments. The best sportswriting is often quite spartan, aesthetically simple stuff with elegant results: the reader knows exactly where the essayist is going through clever use of words.

Ever the contradiction, Roebuck eschewed this principle. He used such a variety of nuanced descriptive terms that those adjectives became surgical tools. It was this which set him apart from other writers. His description - simple, measured yet far-reaching - left his audience completely aware of the importance of each event without needing to reach for a thesaurus. His vocabulary, easy and extensive, meant he captured the essence of what it meant to be at the cricket on any particular day.

His successor as the Thinking Man's cricket journalist is likely to be Fairfax Media's Crown Prince of Commentary, Greg Baum. In the hours after Roebuck's passing, Baum wrote an obituary - unsteady but fluent, respectful - hauting, even - which only underlined what a wordsmith the game has lost.

A friend once said of literature that there's not enough time in life for bad prose. If a story was stilted or awkward, it was best to tell only the facts. Those able to afford it could stretch their narrative wings - Douglas Adams did it perhaps better than any.

Cricket writing mourns it's premier artisan.

My Favourite Cricketer: Justin Langer, by Sarah C Robinson

In continuing our series "My Favourite Cricketer", Sarah C Robinson of the excellent Slowly Learning the Offside Rule writes about Australia's most contradictory opener, Justin Langer.

As an England cricket fan, there is one rule: Thou shall not support an Aussie.

And so, this is my confession. I have sinned. My favourite cricketer is an Australian batsman. It is the often underappreciated Justin Langer.

For me, nothing summarises Langer’s career better than Telemachus Brown’s song ‘(Wrong About) Justin Langer’ in which a couple argue about his career. The singer says “All I argued was Langer wasn’t my favourite player... The way you looked at me like we were gonna end. It’s all my fault, it was my very own clanger. I’ll admit I was wrong about Justin Langer.”

It was the 2^nd April 2006, and Justin Langer was playing in his 100^th Test match. For a man who has always spoken about how much wearing the Baggy Green cap means to him, it was one of the greatest honours to have played for Australia that many times. His parents had flown from Perth to Johannesburg to watch.

A Ntini bouncer hit him on his right earpiece, and he immediately collapsed to the ground. He was led offthe pitch bleeding and taken to hospital. The injury was described as a ‘significant concussion’ and he was warned he should not take the field again, in case a ball hit his head a second time. Another blow could be life-threatening.

Langer was all too aware of the danger, and he himself knew he was in no condition to bat. He was vomiting, his head was throbbing and he had spent most of the game in his room.  Nevertheless, on the last day he dragged himself from his bed and headed to the Wanderers.

As Australian wickets tumbled in the second innings, captain Ricky Ponting suddenly became aware of the fact that he’d lost Langer. "I started looking for him, and found him with his whites on, and his pads, his arm guard, his helmet," Ponting said. "He was running laps in the change room, trying to convince himself that he was suddenly OK.” Ponting told Langer that he could not bat under any circumstances even if that meant Australia losing. Langer said the chance of him being hit on the head again was slim and that he would bat if needed.

In the end, Australia won by two wickets and Ponting never had to make the decision to end the match before Langer could take himself out to the field. Langer is convinced that he would have batted if needed. Ponting argues he would not have let him do it.

Courtesy: www.india-server.com

This story, more than any other, reminds me of the passion and determination Justin Langer has. He didn’t just want to play for his country. He was obsessed with playing for his country – and winning.

Justin Langer is often underappreciated. He played alongside some of the greatest players the world has seen, including Waugh and Warne, and he perhaps will never be remembered as a true great of the game. But his role in the side was vital. He was a stable figure at the top of the innings, not always the most aesthetically pleasing, but stubborn and determined nonetheless. He played in 105 Test matches for Australia at an average of 45.27 with twenty-three 100s and thirty 50s.

After making his Test debut, he only played eight Tests in six years. For some, this would be enough reason to give up on the dream of playing international cricket, but Langer battled through, batting consistently for Western Australia. He eventually formed the second best opening partnership in Test match history with Matthew Hayden, scoring 5,655 runs between them in 113 innings (second only to Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes). 

From 2006-2009, he also played county cricket in England for Somerset, and gained the respect of his teammates and spectators alike. He captained the side for two years, and helped them to secure a place in the Twenty20 Champions League in 2009.

During this period, I had the honour of meeting him three times. On every occasion, he was generous with his time, likable and friendly. On the first occasion, after he had signed my scorecard, I asked him for a photograph. He obliged, but while signing some more autographs, he turned to me again and asked if I would like a second photograph, this time without him wearing his sunglasses. Somehow, I managed to say yes and so have two photos with him from that day. They always say you should never meet your heroes, but it was an absolute pleasure to meet him. If possible, I admired him even more.

Courtesy: The Age

Langer is a man of contradictions. He likes the quiet of meditation and yoga, and enjoys gardening. And yet he also has a passion for boxing and used to train with an ex-SAS soldier. His book Seeing the Sunrise, published in 2008, is one of the most inspiring books I have ever read. It is full of motivational stories from his playing career and a very fascinating read.

When he finally retired in 2007, after helping to win the Ashes 5-0, he was emotional. "The reason it's so hard is that I don't want to let it go,” he said. “I don't want to stop playing for Australia. It's emotional, I feel sad about it but I know in my heart it's the right thing to do. To me, it's not just a game. It's been the vehicle that I've learned how to handle success, how to handle criticism, how to handle failure, how to fight back from adversity. I've learned about mateship, I've learned about leadership - it's never been just a game for me.”

It is likely many people in Australia never thought Langer would make it as a consistent Test match player, and definitely not that he would play in over 100 Tests. As it turned out, his playing career is full of fantastic knocks and he proved to be a vital member of the Australian cricket team. He is one of the most determined cricketers to have played cricket. Representing his country was the ultimate accolade, and he worked as hard as he possibly could to achieve it.

Langer, to me, is more than just a cricketer. He is a reminder that you can achieve anything you want if you work really hard. Not only that, he is one of the nicest men involved in cricket.

I’m certain a lot of people admit that they were wrong about Justin Langer.

Sarah C Robinson writes at Slowly Learning the Offside Rule and tweets at @SarahCRobinson

Back to My Favourite Cricketer homepage.

Sixty-Six Sigma: Tasmania

Ben Roberts with Matthew Wood

The Tasmanians were rightfully Champions of the 2010-11's Sheffield Shield. They are a mix of some great home-grown talent along with long being the home away from home for cricketers from other states.

Openers: Ed Cowan and Nick Kruger

Ed Cowan is one of those recruits, the former New South Welshman bringing determination as an opening batsman along with a passion and enthusiasm for the game to Tasmania. His personal results in 2010/11 were slightly below his career numbers, but having a determined player at the top of the order serves any team well. When first seeing Cowan bat at NSW training, noted judge Greg Matthews suggested his technique had 5000 Test runs in it; Test representation is unlikely, but doesn't take away from the fact he's got a very compact game.

Nick Kruger has been around the first class scene in Australia for a while. Like Cowan he was born in NSW but played his cricket first for Queensland before moving south to Tasmania. His five matches for Tasmania saw him average 52 in 2010/11 and finally start to make a play for more consistent first class selection.

Number Three: Ricky Ponting

You would think that Ponting is owed an extended run in his home state's team at the position in the order he most covets -simply because he's one of Australia's greatest ever batsman. But there is a great risk that Ponting, having already fallen on his sword as Australian captain, may withdraw further from the national team and therefore be required to justify his place for Tasmania.

When "Punter" thrusts on the Baggy Green, he'll be replaced by Alex Doolan, a twenty-five year old local pro who bats quite well. Unfortunately that's about as much as we can say for him, for almost anyone who replaces Ricky Thomas Ponting can only be said to bat "quite well".

Middle Order: George Bailey & Mark Cosgrove

George Bailey could be the most popular cricketer in Australia not to represent his country. Perhaps it's his ruddy good charm, maybe it's a name that sounds like it's better suited for rugger at Eton and maybe because he's accepted his fate as the new Siddons, doomed to make runs, captain his state and not trouble Chappell, Hilditch et al. He also captains well.

Yes we can make many a humorous quip about Mark Cosgrove's waistline and his alleged desire to live in a rookery while at the Australian Cricket Academy. But like his rotund brethren, the man can bat. Jamie Cox may have pleaded with the Taswegians to ignore the overtures of Cosgrove when he was dumped from South Australia, but Cosgrove now has a Shield title and the honour of having made a key contribution with the bat averaging 53.

All-Rounder: Luke Butterworth

Being the leading wicket taker for Tasmania with 45 (at 17.5 runs apiece) in 2010/11 coupled with 381 runs at 34 was reason enough for Luke Butterworth to be selected on the Australia A tour of Zimbabwe during the winter. Butterworth was a key member of the Shield winning team and is on the cusp of higher duties, at the least in the limited overs format.

Wicket-keeper: Tim Paine

Tim Paine has been ready and waiting for the departure of Brad Haddin for some time so he can take over the Australian Test team. Unlike Haddin, Paine has a level head and a trustworthy demeanour when batting and wicketkeeping. His 2010/11 was derailed by injury, but it would not surprise anyone (and would raise many spirits) if he was to take over full time as Australia's wicketkeeper by summers end. Tim Triffitt is his backup.

Spinner: Xavier Doherty

Xavier Doherty was unfairly maligned due to the ridiculous decision to call him up for Test duty last season. He was criticised for being what he is - a left-arm slow bowler who doesn't spin it but who can restrict runs in the one-day format.

Krezja bowls to Phil Hughes: flickr.com/photos/pj_in_oz/3319424964/

Of course nobody would ever turn down that chance - not even Darren Pattinson. The cricketing world turned on him somewhat despite it being plain he was not ready for it - (or likely ever would be). This uproar overshadowed his solid form for Tasmania in multiple formats of the game, including first-class matches. After his unceremonious exclusion from the Australian team, he returned 22 wickets at 28 in 8 2010-11 fixtures.

In times where two spinners are needed - like when they tour the subcontinent, for example - Jason Krezja will play. Expect to see quite a bit of both players, one as the defence and the other as the aggressor. Matt in particular would love to see Krezja brought back into the Australian squad.

Pacemen: Ben Hilfenhaus, James Faulkner, and Adam Mahar

We all know that Ben Hilfenhaus can bowl, and do it well. He has produced spells of swing bowling that have had some of the best batsmen in the world struggling to lay bat on a swinging ball. But his difficulty is that rarely does he look as though he wants to bowl. Served well at home by the regularly overcast conditions in Hobart, cometh the day where he's required to perform in other conditions he has often been found wanting.

He's the greatest corollary in Australian cricket at the present time: we understand that Mitchell Johnson can be great, but with his action/headspace, one understands he will occasionally be great and sometimes be just awful. Hilfenhaus seems to have everything in his favour (good head on shoulders, great action, moves the ball, height, bounce, pace - you name it) yet "boasts" a Test average of 35. He should be the pacemen on whom "Pup" Clarke can rely upon most, yet will struggle to play much Test cricket this year unless his form drastically improves.

Both James Faulkner and Adam Mahar played in the Shield final for Tasmania and took 36 and 37 wickets respectively in 2010/11. Mahar will be 30 early this season and is a late bloomer, but providing value to the Tasmanians and Australian cricket in general. Faulkner is only 21 with many top level cricket years ahead. Look for him in Australian ODI colours soon, probably replacing Moises Henriques.

Who's locked in?

Everyone except Doherty. Doherty is perhaps the number one spinning option but has the more attacking option of Jason Krejza on his tail; places may come down to form or the unlikely event of Australian selection.

What's disappointing?

Tasmania are the oldest squad in the competition - by a good two years or so. Only Faulkner and Paine can be said to be young-ish (Paine's twenty-six!) and while that experience has served the Tigers well, they could well go back to the well and sign backup younger players through a loan system.

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

Doolan (RHB), of course, but he'll play the majority of games as Ponting represents his country. All-rounder Evan Gulbis (RHB, RM) took 4/8 in a Limited Overs match last week while fast man Jeremy Smith has played for Australia at junior level, though his early top-flight experiences haven't been necessarily pleasant.

Back to Sixty-Six Sigma homepage.

Lead photo courtesy: flickr.com/photos/pj_in_oz/3300619776 

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.

Finally the AFL season can start

This offseason has probably been the most dramatic in recent AFL history. And, not a moment too soon, the break ends tonight as Carlton take on Richmond at the MCG. Thank goodness - because as car-crashingly enthralling as reading about the "St Kilda Schoolgirl" and her ... err ... exploits has been, it will be blessed and welcome relief to jam match coverage in amongst the tabloid-style back pages to which we've become so accustomed.

The offseason of 2010-11 for the AFL really started over twelve months ago when it became apparent that "Little Gary" would not sign a contract extension with Geelong, meaning he would effectively become a restricted free agent at the end of season 2010. Since then, AFL off-field shenanigans have included (in no particular order) Mark Thompson's lie-induced burnout; Ablett's inevitable re-enactment of the LeBron James masterpiece "Leaving Cleveland"; Brendan Fevola's self-destruction; Nick Riewoldt's wang; Zac Dawson's disco biscuits; the creation of a new franchise; a Collingwood premiership and subsequent uprising of the Magpie army; the gutting of the National Rugby League as Israel Folau and Greg Inglis changed (or threatened to change) codes; James Hird's Second Coming as Essendon coach; further rumours about stars leaving their clubs for what amounts to GWS slush-funds; Ricky Nixon's precipitous fall from grace and finally, thankfully, nothing at all about Port Adelaide or Fremantle.

Andrew Demetriou must surely be relieved that Melbourne, a town notorious for it's blanket coverage of AFL-related issues, will finally have actual deliverable content to space out the negative headlines. Aside from the form of Ricky Ponting - and how many words can you print daily on that? - the scarcity of sport worth speaking about has left Melbourne newspapers with little else on which to speculate throughout the Summer. Had the ignoble misadventures of Ricky Nixon, Sam Gilbert, Fevola and the horribly overpromoted Melbourne schoolgirl occurred in the Summer of 2007 amidst a 5 - 0 Ashes victory, the Melbourne Victory's phenomenal second season and the retirements of Warne, Langer, Martyn and McGrath, the AFL's offseason of new frontiers may well have garnered only a fraction of the attention it did this year.

The spotlight thrown on this off-field malarkey was only intensified by Australia's performance in The Ashes and waning public interest in cricket. As most sport becomes fully and painfully professional, they lose much of the larrikinism and fun which attracted the mug punter to them in the first place. Faced with the choice between a team full of bullies, pouters and bores or following the World Game (with very little television coverage), Joe Public decided it was best simply to re-invest in the coming Aussie Rules season. The league revelled in the exposure, initially falling victim to the old adage that any publicity is good publicity. This theory was recently discounted somewhat in The Economist; the AFL was only to learn how wrong that statement can be in February as first Brendan Fevola, then Ricky Nixon committed professional seppuku.

The AFL plays the politics of sports much better than any other code in Australia. No other competition in the nation felt obliged to have its say on the bidding process save the AFL, yet Demetriou managed to sound both condescending and patronising to football's governing body all at once. The failed FFA bid for the 2022 football World Cup meant only more airtime and column inches. The League invited - and loved - the attention, yet as the summer wore on it became obvious that those at League headquarters couldn't wait for the season to begin. The stream of life malapropisms committed by AFL brethren had made life in the public eye nigh-on unbearable. What were once a player's endearing foibles now appear glaring character weaknesses. Football's never been played by saints - but now media coverage and the blogosphere mean for better coverage. What was once left uncovered rarely remains so now.

Finally, the season is upon us. Now perhaps we can get around to covering what really matters: the game itself.

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.

Make Ponting's punishment fit the crime

Ricky Ponting is Australia's least effective captain since Kim Hughes. He's in charge of a team finding it hard to match the achievements of his fallen comrades. He also is facing one of the worst form slumps of his career. As a leader of men he's mastered the art of using the right words with the wrong body language; his history is littered with animated - and public - disagreements with umpires and opposition. He is, quite simply, a bad loser.

But for the ICC to threaten to suspend him for damaging a television set after being dismissed against Zimbabwe is not a bridge, but a channel tunnel too far. Reports have the ICC charging the Australia captain with "abuse of ... ground equipment, fixtures or fittings during an international match". Allegedly, he threw his box when arriving back in the Australia dressing room after being dismissed by an outstanding direct hit from Chris Mpofu. It hit a television set, and damaged the picture control. There was no incident involving him smashing a television set with his bat despite earlier reports and his actions immediately after included volunteering to pay for any damage as well as notifying the Gujarat board of the incident.

Helen Keller knows that Ponting has a temper and struggles to control it, but we're hardly talking criminal offences here. Unlike past cases, where Ian Healy threw his bat into the change rooms, Hansie Cronje attacking an umpire's door with a stump or - apocryphally, anyway - Alan Border destroyed a change room after getting out, this was a private expression of frustration. And Ponting has tacitly admitted responsibility by offering payment for damages. That's also an expression of remorse.

You can't go around damaging fixtures, so some punishment should be doled out, but it's time for the ICC to act more like a responsible parent than a petty dictator: as the governing body proved when judging the accused Pakistani Spot-Fixers, each case should be judged on its own merits and in this case a suspension would be almost unbelievably harsh. In a climate of fear, perhaps Ponting would be punished harshly. In a climate of teaching the result should be simple reparations to the damaged property subtracted from his match fees. Because he has past offences also shouldn't register: although his lack of on-field restraint and this incident both stem from an apparent lack of maturity or self-control, they are completely different issues. And even though he's perhaps cricket's first modern-day recidivist captain, a suspension would be like jailing a person for their first speeding offence simply because they already have a rap for armed robbery.

If the ICC is the caring, sharing father figure it purports to be, justice will prevail and Ponting will be compelled to repay the costs of any damage done. If, as many suspect, the ICC bends to the whim of sensationalism, then Ponting will miss Australia's matches against New Zealand and Sri Lanka. It will be an interesting test case for the ICC.

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.

Lessons from the Past

When installed as captain of England in 1975, Tony Greig had a plan to revitalise his adopted country's Test form. After their innings defeat in the first Test at Edgbaston had cost his side the Ashes, he felt the batting was a misery - as collapsible as an accordion and just as flamboyant. As the new leader of the England cause, he decided to approach the problem in his own manner.

It was simple enough: Greig went straight to the best bowlers on the county scene and asked them who were the toughest players to dismiss. The answer came back unsurprisingly that inimitable Yorkshireman Geoffrey Boycott was one of the hardest. The second name that came back was a veritable shock - it was "The bank clerk who went to war", Northamptonshire's David Steele. A prematurely grey middle-order bat, thirty-four year old Steele sported a first-class average of only 31 and at AJ Greig's insistence was promptly selected to play against the two greatest attacks of the era, Australia and the West Indies. Boycott remained in exile, refusing to play for England in protest at being looked over for the captaincy.

Steele only played eight Test matches, yet averaged just over 42 for his Test career and the Anglocentric cricketing tome Wisden named him Cricketer of the Year in 1976. He scored 45 and 50 on debut and followed it up with his only hundred against the Windies the following year. It was a transitional time for the England squad with newcomers Mike Brearley, Graham Gooch and Bob Woolmer sandwiched between veterans Snow, Lever and Amiss. But Steele gave the England batting some spine sorely lacking and showed, more than anything, the youthful Gooch and Woolmer how to be a professional.

Gone are the days where shotgun selections pay the most benefit as every country's team has access to footage going back ten years. By reaching for Michael Beer in the hopes of uncovering another Peter Taylor, the Australian selectors showed their hand devoid of trumps. The first step in developing a team's fortunes is to make them hard to beat and though Australia's bowling stocks aren't anywhere near their nadir, the batsmanship on show has been laughably inept. As Mike Hussey ages there have been many questions as to his longevity in the national squad and now it may be in Australia's best interests to retain him as long as possible to help show the next generation how to prize one's scalp.

With Ponting probable to miss the Sydney Test and Phil Hughes's immediate status in jeopardy, the selectors could do worse than partnering Shane Watson and Hussey with other batsman who treasure their wicket. The current intent on playing to a certain style - getting on the front foot early, dominating the bowlers, scoring runs quickly - rather than just doing what best suits the situation is hurting Australia's prospects of a quick recovery from their current Test doldrums.

What's gone right for Australia?

These are dark times for the Rebel Alliance. After the attack on the Death Star... No, hang on, that's The Empire Strikes Back.

The reference may be valid anyway. One team has dominated the other so far this Ashes series and since Australia's crushing defeat at Hoth - sorry, Adelaide - and Simon Katich being frozen in carbonite - err, pulling up lame with achilles trouble - it appears as dark a time as can be remembered for the Australians. (I'm not suggesting England are actually evil, just dominant like the Empire were in the real Star Wars trilogy).

So without hint of jingoism it's time to examine after two Tests - one lamentably poor, the other suffering from one poor innings - what the Australians have done well through the start of this Ashes campaign. Obviously with Australian down 1 - 0 and with strife consuming the Baggy Green camp, the positives may be harder to find than negatives. To use Ricky Ponting's words - There are positives. To say what Ponting does not forces one to is to add - Australia is simply the inferior team this year. Although there are the following seven positives, it's unfortunate they come from a talent-deprived team and are overshadowed by negatives.

Nevertheless, on the plus side for the Australians are:

Mike Hussey's return to form

"Mr. Cricket" has been a millstone around Aussie necks for nigh-upon two years now, sprinkling poor performances with rigid batsmanship and an occasional impressive One-Day innings. He only made it into the First Test team by way of Khawaja and Ferguson failing to impress, yet has responded brilliantly: he's stroke-played, rather than ground out his scores. And best of all: he's the likeable Mike Hussey that Australia rallies around.

The Return of the Peter Siddle we all know and love

Peter Siddle's first innings hat-trick in Brisbane generated more hype than The Oprah Winfrey Show, yet in two subsequent innings he's been unable to reproduce the same bite and venom. That's not particularly surprising given his history of taking only a few wickets interspersed with occasional Michelles at Test level. What he does offer is abrasiveness, consistency - you know what you're going to get - and an optimism currently lacking in Mitchell Johnson's cricket.

Mitchell Johnson's omission from the Second Test

Harsh? No, not really. Because where we are as a cricket-playing nation is dependent on the whims and fragile confidence of Jess Bratich's boyfriend. When firing, Johnson is on a level with Dale Steyn as the best, most hostile fast men around. He was dropped for lack of form, but not discarded as having played out his usefulness like Jason Gillespie five years ago. His not playing in Adelaide hopefully will provide enough spark for him to rediscover his best form, but statements like "I need to get my head right" aren't inspiring - frankness regarding one's headspace just show how low confidence is, and how far one has to come to get back to full mental fitness.

Shane Watson's leadership

Hussey and Shane Watson, more than Ricky Ponting and much more than Michael Clarke have said what his team and the cricketing public of Australia have needed to hear: Australia have been second-best throughout this series. This comes from a man who two years ago I would have bet had played nearly his last Test for the Aussies and had less leadership ability than lettuce. Now an automatic selection, perhaps his nascent leadership ability could be used in the national setup.

Marcus North's failures at no. 6

Although affable, elegant and good captaincy material, Marcus North simply doesn't have what it takes to be a World Class number six batsman. Oh, for the days of Martin Love! Change is now inevitable at this position, and with North's career. That he has failed three times in three innings when Australia has needed him to fire means that he's now had enough chances. Only Simon Katich's injury - meaning Australia would perhaps take two "newbies" into the Third Test - may have saved his spot. An alternative: given Phil Hughes' shaky start to the Sheffield Shield season and North's past-life as an opener, it may be time to move him up the order to start the innings alongside Watson.

Brad Haddin

Personal opinion in cricketing circles vacillates between maintaining Haddin as 'keeper or going back to Tim Paine. Paine's injury obviously now precludes this, but so to does the form of the New South Welshman. Only two months ago he was a fading light but his application with the bat has earned him new respect.

The selectors' willingness to experiment

Xavier Doherty and Ryan Harris, two players who only three years ago were middle-of-the-road Sheffield Shield players are now Australian representatives, conjuring up memories of Simon Cook, Scott Muller and Matt Nicholson. But let's not forget that England have gotten their current attack to this quality by trying and discarding Sajid Mahmood, (Australia's) Darren Pattison, James Tredwell, Amjad Khan, Jon Lewis, Liam Plunkett, Shaun Udal and Ian Blackwell. In five years. Greg Chappell upset the Indian applecart by attempting to usher through new blood and it would seem he's intent on the same course as an Australian selector. All is not lost, Australia.

The battle is not yet half over. Given the disparity in consistent quality between the bowling attacks, Adelaide may well have always been the Test they were most likely to lose: it was where, should the bats fail, the bowlers would have the greatest difficulty getting them out of a mess.

But as a hopeful Return of the Jedi moment approaches for Australia as they move towards Perth, Melbourne and Sydney. It may be that Michael Clarke steps up to play Luke Skywalker (the one who's ostensibly the hero but still everyone thinks is a prat). Shane Watson could slide easily into that role also. The men in the Baggy Green would do well to focus on what they are doing well, rather than looking pessimistically at what they aren't doing.

Wallpaper

It goes from bad to worse for Michael Clarke and the Australian one-day unit. Their performance on the weekend against a good-but-far-from great Sri Lanka outfit offers further proof that the time is ripe for change at the top of Australian cricket.

The Australian team, to be blunt, has gotten too used to winning. That sounds like a good thing, doesn't it? But perhaps not. Because winning can promote complacency and winning absolutely promotes a fear of change. How often have you heard the idiom "You don't change a winning team"? How often have you heard of sports players who have lucky rituals: goalkeepers touching each bar of their goal frame, an AFL player's lucky underpants, a cricketer who had to have his bat taped to the ceiling to succeed in an innings? (In case you're wondering, those specific examples were Man City's Shay Given, former Geelong forward Paul Brown and former South Africa batsman Neil McKenzie).

That Australia has gotten too used to winning is a bad thing when really they aren't a good cricket side. Only the most cursory of examinations reveals that the current Australian squad - in all forms of the game - lacks a game-breaking bowler and batsmanship of any technique. The flaws that have plagued Ricky Ponting are still there and Michael Clarke has gone the way of Steve Waugh - paring elements from his game one by one until only the bare minimum still remains.

But still Australia has succeeded. Perhaps swayed by their 3-0 series win in South Africa, Mitchell Johnson's misfires are persisted with yet he's shown no aptitude for thinking a batsman out. That he hasn't been able to reproduce that form ever since doesn't necessarily prove that series a fluke, but it does cast serious doubts over his ability to be a consistent strike man. The other fast men during that series, Ben Hilfenhaus and Peter Siddle are honest but probably limited.

Their wins over the past three years don't smack of an Australian side rebuilding but of a team trying to achieve short-term goals, much like the English side during the 1990s. In fact, the parallels are so obvious it's scary. An ageing batting lineup and bowlers who tend to enter the scene with a bang but then don't produce consistently conjurs memories of Mike Gatting and Dominic Cork holding up the England middle order. A squad made up this means means you will always win occasional matches, perhaps enough even to think that all is developing at a fair pace. If those bowlers don't develop however, the team risks a lack of development and this suggests a lack of any plan for the redevelopment of a nation's cricket hopes.

(If you're doubting the comparison of 2010 Australia to 1993 England, take a look at the following batting lineups, man-to-man: Gooch/Katich, Atherton/Watson, R. Smith/Ponting, Maynard/North, Stewart/Clarke, Thorpe/Hussey. Notice the similarities? I thought so.)

Australia's recent occasional wins - in South Africa, in last year's Ashes, against poorer opposition - have papered over the cracks to such an extent that we've fooled ourselves into thinking that we are gradually rebuilding with a plan. That's just not true - we're trying to build a team on the fly and that doesn't work. In order to build anything worthwhile, there must be some pain - just ask anyone who's refurbished a house. Though they cost more, the long-term decisions bring the most benefit - wallpaper can hide cracks in a foundation for a while, but the inevitably those foundation flaws devalue whatever it is you're trying to construct. Anything the Australian selectors build with just next year in mind is just flock wallpaper - irritating, ineffectual and saying something about the brains behind the operation.