Go directly to Xavier Doherty. Do not pass "Go".

Xavier Doherty, meet the ECB. ECB, Xavier Doherty.

Although it has recently emerged that personal factors unsurprisingly played a large role in the termination of Kevin Pietersen’s England career, the decision was spun initially as the beginning of a lineup rejuvenation and the implementation of a succession plan to counteract a possible bottoming out occurring upon the retirement of the team’s best players.

We shall say nothing on the fact that those best players still patently include Kevin Pietersen.

However, the idea of gradual squad refreshment is not a new one. One only has to look at the recent Ashes victors to see their forlorn attempts at prolonging their glory era. While it didn’t include forcible retirements (though Damien Martyn may feel otherwise) it was planned meticulously: the new generation - Phil Hughes, Callum Ferguson, Moises Henriques, Ben Hilfenhaus and Dan Cullen – could be ushered in by more established “bridging” players like Clarke, Watson, Siddle and Mike Hussey.

But it didn’t work – none of it. Including the Argus Report. In fact, of that next crop of Australian world-beaters only Phil Hughes has achieved anything of substance at Test level. That was during his first two Tests, now five years and three “technique spells” ago and has resulted in him becoming the most overanalyzed Australian cricketer since Matthew Elliott. The consistency and trust beget by success disintegrated as players failed to perform or started looking not at the ball but over their shoulder.

With the sacking of Pietersen, still the Englishman with the most Test credibility, formerly-well-performed English stalwarts may likewise begin to question their job security.

(Creative commons)

The reason the antipodean succession plan failed was simple. The lone duty of a selector should be to choose the set of players best equipped to represent their country at any particular time. For Australia from 2007-08 through 2013, that was never Beau Casson, nor was it ever Xavier Doherty, Glenn Maxwell, Michael Beer, Ashton Agar, John Hastings or (damn it) Cameron White. The Australian selectors – guided by a board expecting adventure, excitement and really wild things dynamism, marketability and breathing space – simply awarded Test caps without a blueprint detailing how piece X was to insert into piece Y.

The selection committee, along with former coach Mickey Arthur obeyed every male stereotype and refused to look at the accompanying photocopied instruction manual, resulting in ill-advised adventures with poorly-equipped players and constant hoping for a saviour – rather than expecting player growth and, subsequently, improved performance.

Paul Downton and the ECB have a plan, broadly speaking – to rebuild a “unified” squad behind Alastair Cook. How they’re going to enact that plan without evident quality or even perhaps – with Eoin Morgan the favourite to succeed Pietersen – players able to play a role this utopia (c.f. Rogers, Chris and Lyon, Nathan).

Revolutions start in one of two ways. The first utilizes adrenaline-fuelled changes that address a change that is (sometimes) needed. The reverse is the enaction of a well-formulated plan that also includes details as to new administration methods. Neither is necessarily wrong, but as our American brethren might attest, the second method produces superior results. Given the speed with which Kevin Pietersen was summarily pink-slipped, serious doubts linger as to the nature of the ECB’s decision making process.

English fans should hope Downton is as cogent a decision-maker as his reputation trumpets. Otherwise, this way Xavier Doherty lies.

Graphic: Selected Australian spin bowling statistics

The following chart maps selected statistics from Australian spinners.

It continues to amaze that Steve Smith is selected for Australia as a quote-unquote spin bowler, while Steve O'Keefe remains in the Test wilderness.  For more discussion, tune in to this week's Short Jabs podcast on the Cricket Couch.

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.

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 

Messi a worthy Ballon d'Or winner

When FIFA announced that Barcelona and Argentina forward Lionel Messi had won the Ballon d'Or as the world's best player during 2010, it flew in the face of convention by selecting a player who, although universally regarded as tremendous, had not "won it all" that year.

In all fairness, we're talking about a slightly different Ballon d'Or from now on. First and most importantly, the award is now the FIFA Ballon d'Or, dispensed by football's governing body and it's comical - and not in a good way - head, Sepp Blatter. In times past it was awarded by the magazine France Football from 1956 and until three years ago was given only to players who played in Europe. In 1991 FIFA began doling out their World Player of the Year and have wrapped their all-encompassing tentacles around a trophy they didn't own the rights to, appropriating the most famous individual footballing award and stencilled their acronym stencilled across it.

The criteria now for FIFA's Ballon d'Or winner include: performances in major tournaments; individual and team honours; individual talent; skill and fair play; their overall career and finally personality and charisma.

A second key difference is that Messi, although almost indisputably the best footballer in the world, was presented the trophy without actually being part of a winning World Cup squad. This was the first time the award has been presented in a World Cup year to a player who didn't feature for the World Champions. The Spanish press reeled and then railed against the selection of the Argentine, suggesting that triumphant Spain midfielders Xavi and Andres Iniesta were more worthy recipients. The clamour only increased when Spain coach Vicente Del Bosque was beaten into the minor places by Jose Mourinho, who helmed Inter Milan to the UEFA Champions League title.

As much as FIFA has suffered a year they had hoped for more from, we can't lay the blame squarely on the head of Sepp and his eminently swayable bureaucratic chorus. The Ballon d'Or was voted upon by journalists, coaches and captains of teams all over the world and as such the blame - or credit - can be apportioned to people inside the game and not just to those who oversee it. It's telling that Champions League winner and World Cup finalist Wesley Sneijder of Inter Milan and the Netherlands was voted for in large numbers by journalists but not as much from players and coaches, perhaps testament to his notoriously abrasive personality.

The clamour for Xavi, in particular, to win the award is fair and had he walked away with the trophy could be very few arguments. He has claims to being the best midfielder in the world - perhaps the best of his generation - and played alongside Messi with Spanish champions Barcelona and for World Cup winning Spain. But really, could anyone definitively say Xavi is a better player than Messi? And with that said, according to FIFA's criteria he only has one more string to his bow than Messi, who perhaps could have an advantage in several others. As far as Xavi ultimately having more team success, you could say Messi helped Argentina to their World Cup finish in spite of a wacky coach who selected a team which wasn't the best Argentina had to offer. In fact, Messi should be congratulated on his World Cup display while being surrounded by the circus that inevitably follows Diego Maradona. It appears, especially when noting Sneijder's miserly vote tally, that personal preference for each player's role and personality played a role.

Great players don't have to win it all to be recognised as great but they do have to perform on the largest stages. Winning certainly does provide a boost for a player's legacy but it takes a lot of convincing to prove that winning is the be-all and end-all to defining a player's greatness.

Why they weren't picked

With the Australian side whittled down to thirteen as the first Test approaches, suddenly Callum Ferguson and (probably) Usman Khawaja have been left on the sidelines. The selectors have opted to stay with the same six batsmen who have led Australia to their current World ranking of fourth. The reason is simple: although the middle order has struggled mightily and watching Mike Hussey now reminds us all of David Boon's last, tedious, eyeball-stripping innings, neither the South Australian nor his younger New South Welsh counterpart have really made that final spot their own.

To look at Australia's last Test XI is to see mediocrity at several positions, namely in the middle order and the spin-bowling department. The team defeated in India will change, with Tasmanian Xavier Doherty replacing Nathan Hauritz on the strength of one good Sheffield Shield match and one outstanding ODI: his First Class figures aren't particularly impressive but he's performed well at the right time and thus has received the call.

The batsmen, however, are a different matter. Both Ferguson and Khawaja have had several chances recently to write their names in ink across the Aussie middle order yet have failed to do so; last week's paltry Australia A showings were the final nail in their collective coffins. Gone are the days of 1994-95 where Australia A were perhaps the second-best side in the World and this was proved emphatically at Bellerive as both "Next Best Things" surrendered their wickets to the English attack.

Khawaja or Ferguson would do well to heed the exploits of a young Damien Martyn. During the 1990s, an Australian had to force the selectors collective hands both with mountains of runs and with scores at the right time. The most striking example of this was in the early days of the West Indies 1992-93 tour. West Australian tyro Martyn was making runs for fun in the-then Mercantile Mutual Cup, in Shield matches and against a full-strength Windies pace battery in three separate matches. His front-foot slashes of Ambrose and Bishop to the extra cover boundary on a pacy WACA pitch were indelibly marked on my thirteen year-old brain as the most exciting cricket shots I'd ever seen. When the squad lists were submitted for the first Test at the 'Gabba, Martyn was there alongside an in-form Australian top six each of whom has claim to being an all-time great of the game. Martyn kept making runs and both popular and selector opinion was swayed immutably in his favour with a quickfire 36 against the tourists at Bellerive for the Australian XI. He made the team at the expense of Dean Jones.

It wasn't so much the weight of Martyn's runs that ensured his spot, nor the manner in which he scored them although his four-day Strike Rate nearing 100 was undoubtedly impressive. Damien Martyn was selected because he'd showed his readiness for the big time by making crucial runs in the right spots. When needing runs to cement his position, that one innings for Australian XI made not picking him a popular impossibility. The same stories apply with Matthew Elliott in 1997, Adam Gilchrist in 1999 and even Phil Hughes' 2008-09 domestic season: they made so many runs at the right time that Michael Slater, Ian Healy and Matthew Hayden were dumped so that Australia could progress. With mediocre recent form, neither Khawaja nor Ferguson have shown their mettle, posing the question: are they really ready? Are they ready to make the step up to Test match level?

As it happens, Usman Khawaja has been called up as an emergency replacement for a struggling Michael Clarke so we may well find out if he is ready anyway. Should Mike Hussey fail in Brisbane, we may find out how good a training-ground the Sheffield Shield really is. With many puzzling selections (and non-selections) over the past two years, it appears that Australia's selection panel has decided to award caps to guys they hope can do the job rather than to players they know can do the job. That's not their fault as there are more question marks over the strength of the Australian domestic competition than at any time since Packer - there isn't the same quality that inspires complete confidence in their delivering, so the next best thing is to plump for hope and call it development. What they can be pilloried for is the inconsistency with which they've applied this policy.

Neither Khawaja, Ferguson, Cameron White, Peter George, Mitch Starc or even Golden Child Steve Smith has forced the selection panel's to pick them even though Australia cries out for young talent to replace their ageing and tired top guns, now less howitzers and more derringers. Perhaps now we see more clearly why throughout the noughties so many Australian debutants have been aged in their late-20s and early-30s - the younger players just haven't had the responsibility that creates personal growth from an early age and so haven't taken it upon themselves to ensure their selection.