Cricket Australia contract list: more questions than answers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I learned this Summer

As part of a series on The Sledge, several online columnists were invited to submit what this past cricket season has taught them.  Featured contributors included cricket blogosphere stalwarts Ant Sims of Wicket Maiden, Dave Siddall of World Cricket Watch and Subash Jayaraman of The Sight Screen.  The following was Balanced Sports' contribution.

What I learned this summer:

Andrew Hilditch was really, really bad.

Let's not split hairs, I already knew this – so did everyone except Mitchell Johnson. But John Inverarity's relatively steady start at the helm of the Australian selection panel threw Hilditch's stint as Chairman of Selectors into sharp relief.

The guy wasn't bad, but comically inept.

Australian cricket has for years been regarded as a bastion against petty griping. Like any good marriage, the players and establishment held onto their grievances, only to let them pour out in flare-ups – like, say, World Series Cricket or the A-Team's Rebel Tour of South Africa. However, once there's been some resolution and a few years in which the establishment re-entrenches themselves into “best practice”, then suddenly Australia's competitive again.

With the ascent of journeymen like Ed Cowan and Dan Christian to the forefront of the national setup, Australia appears to be once more rewarding effort rather than physical gifts. This suggests the trough into which Australian cricket sunk wasn't so much the effects Warne, Langer and McGrath retiring, but of Hilditch's inconsistent selection methodology.

In his five years as head honcho, Hilditch debuted twenty-nine players, a neat half of which didn't play more than six Tests. It seems the only people he held to account were the newbies. Hilditch looked at players much like the fifteen year old who lusts at every girl who walks by. His tendencies varied from the youthful (Steven Smith) to the old bags (Bryce McGain).

Hilditch is gone, banished to the vagaries of law practice. Which is good, because we can still feel good about despising him.

The World realised they should have been giving Tendulkar runs a long time ago

Australia's bowling lineup isn't a patch on the attacks Sachin Tendulkar has flayed around the world for a generation. Siddle's pretty good, Harris is an injury looking for a body part, James Pattinson seems to have a bit about him, Hilfenhaus is good if your TV isn't Hi-Def while Nathan Hauritz Lyon failed to trouble any recognised batsmen for the entire Border-Gavaskar series. You could call the ugly stepsisters – in Siddle's case you'd be spot on, as the man has a head like a kicked-in biscuit tin.

But no matter how disheveled the Aussie attack, it's a novelty to write that Tendulkar failed with the bat. More poignantly, he couldn't complete that troublesome hundredth International hundred that's becoming an Obelix-sized bugbear for him and increasingly-frantic Indian media outlets.

Which is confusing, because he's broken nearly all the batting records there are. Records shouldn't trouble him, and especially this one, because it just doesn't mean much (it's a compilation of ODI and Test figures). However, it is a very pretty thing to have on one's resume.

Like an average Joe trying to impress a model, Sachin's got performance anxiety – something none of us would have attributed to such an accomplished player. The cricket world has now realised that bowling to Tendulkar is a lot easier when he's got 99 tons under his belt and they wish he'd just gotten there sooner.

Virat Kohli will be welcomed by Australian fans for the next decade

Aussie fans have always had someone from opposing teams to hate. We don't mind arrogance and cockiness from our own lot (unless it's Dean Jones), but when stuff is thrown at our boys, we get all Simon Katich pissy.

The ultimate example of this is Douglas Jardine. The last two decades have been rife with people who rubbed Aussie cricketers, and the populace at large, the wrong way. For the most part, these guys have been good players, which has only reinforced the average Skippy's frustration at them.

It reads almost biblically.

In the beginning, there was Douglas Jardine. Jardine begat Trevor Bailey, who batted with slowness of a one-legged (and dead) mule. Bailey begat Tony Greig, who in turn begat Richard Hadlee. Hadlee had a son, whose name was Pat Symcox, who in turn brought Sourav Ganguly into being. Ganguly bred his own nation of irritants, but none were more irritating than the spinner, Harbhajan Singh.

This was the first Border-Gavaskar series since 1999 in which Harbhajan Singh didn't play – and for the most part (and perhaps because they lost so badly), the team apparently didn't have anyone for us to actively root against: there was Tendulkar's timelessness, Dravid's stoic nature, Yadav's constant four-balls …

Except Virat Kohli. While succeeding leading the Indian batting averages, he p****d off every Australian he saw with an attitude as calming as the new tabasco-flavoured Red Bull.

And this will see him welcomed on these shores for the rest of his career – probably with the typical Aussie mix of grudging admiration and febrile swearing.

And on the eighth day, Harbhajan had a son, whose name was Virat Kohli.

On the Australian Captaincy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cricketing relationships

by Ben Roberts

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

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

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

Ed Cowan, (c) Balanced Sports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's something we prepared earlier: Brad Haddin - The Schizoid Man

Originally published on the Sight Screen, on Sunday 22nd January.

Brad Haddin’s feeling tired, is he?

It’s not really surprising, given he’s been Australia’s first choice wicketkeeper in all formats of the game for nearly five years now.  “Victorian” Matthew Wade, (rather than Tasmanian Tim Paine) now looms largest in his rear view mirror, and Haddin has admitted to feelings of stress and overwork.  Media scrutiny can’t have helped these feelings of exhaustion as in Australian batting and fielding teams that have been uniformly inconsistent he is now considered a weak link.

If truth be told, on form alone Brad Haddin doesn’t deserve to stay in the Australian team.  He has been blessed with exquisite timing (a century against England in the first Ashes Test last year, coupled with potentially career-ending finger injuries to Paine) and more batting talent than any of his nearest rivals.

Creative commons

However, he and Shaun Marsh seem to be the only Australians not to benefit from Micky Arthur’s ascension to the role of national coach.  He started promisingly, with a very watchful 20-odd in the first innings at Melbourne, but followed this with scores of 6, 0 and most recently a second-ball duck in the Big Bash.  He seems torn between the new responsible batsmanship apparently favoured by his countrymen and the voices in his head that tell him to just get out there and smack the ball. 

Sometimes we talk of men out of their time; it appears Haddin was born five years too late.  A decade ago, he would have been the perfect late-order hitter for Australia.  Now, he has become the most obvious and awkward symptom of a worldwide cricketing malaise, where patience is something played on the computer.  His keeping has suffered and his batting stinks of a man in two minds.  Arguing with another person can be tiring, but constantly debating with oneself amidst a climate of fear can be utterly soul-destroying.  It’s little wonder he’s exhausted.

Sometimes talent isn’t enough.  Now more than ever, teams are conscious of how well a player fits into their side – talented players now often make way for lesser mortals in the name of “team balance”.   Comparing the batsmanship of Australia’s keeping options (Haddin with a First Class average of 39, Wade with 40), results pretty much in a wash – except Haddin is a match winner/loser, while Wade contributes reliably but in a less game-changing vein. 

When contrasting their work behind the stumps, no matter how good each usually is, one must plump for the Victorian simply because of his incumbent rival’s absolute lack of form (and footwork).  It is said of footballers that when their “legs go”, their career becomes instantly unrecoverable.  With the exception of leaden-footed dervish Chris Gayle, the same is true of batsmen and keepers: Haddin’s footwork is nearly a decade past it’s use-by date.

However, the middle of a tour is an inopportune time to replace such a significant figure.  Haddin’s status as vice-captain also presumes to his position’s safety.  But the next Australian series – in the West Indies – should be the time in which John Inverarity and his brethren throw name both in the touring party.  By then, Shane Watson may have returned to the lineup and Haddin’s leadership credentials won’t have quite the same pull; his form alone will testify in his defence.

Both Wade and Haddin are supremely talented individuals, and for the moment, selection simply comes down to a matter of taste.  Does one favour matchless eye or preferable technique?  Proven matchwinner or runs in the (First Class) bank?  Haddin could save his career with a century at one of his favoured roads pitches in Adelaide; but admissions of fatigue are usually signs of severe trouble. 

Original post on The Sight Screen.

David Warner scores a century - time for some humble pie

The following piece was written on David Warner's selection for Australia before the first Test against New Zealand.

Why I hate David Warner

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the Dark Side" Yoda

The news that Shane Watson may miss Australia's two Test series against New Zealand comes with the added revelation that David Warner is likely to be called up in his stead. In Warner's defence, his most recent First Class match he scored 148 and boasts a recent double century for Australia A against coughZimbabwecough. The prosecution suggests he has a dominating batting mindset suited best for T20, a minimum of technique (how's that working, Phil Hughes?) and due to this combination, probably a limited lifespan at the top of Australia's Test order.

Australian Cricket: Pay selectors, Pay the Devil

Simon Katich is right: Australian selection policy has been remarkably inconsistent during his tenure at the top of the order. He may, however, be overstepping the mark somewhat as he campaigns for paid, full-time selectors. While the sentiment behind his recent outburst is justified - everyone in the country aside from the selection panel thought him worthy of at least a further year around the Australian side - and his forthright media conference was admirable, it's worth noting that there are several flaws in his argument.

When Defence Minister Stephen Smith entered the fray, the saga turned from interesting to ludicrous, especially when Smith lambasted the selectors for bias against Western Australians. Katich has played in New South Wales for nearly a decade. A Labour "powerbroker" very pleased with such a reputation, by speaking out of turn here he has plunged Australian cricket perilously close to the credibility line and gave those of us who still care wholeheartedly for the sport horrible visions of Ijaz Butt.

Employing selectors in a full-time role is perhaps an workable idea. Though much more cricket is played now than, say, even twenty years ago, offering a selector a full-time role would be a lavish expense - for men of the game such as David Boon, The Unspeakable One (Andrew Hilditch) and Jamie Cox would command far greater than a "living wage". Employing full-time selectors could cost Cricket Australia anywhere between (very conservatively) of a quarter or half a million dollars per annum, money the board simply doesn't have.

Also, while employing selectors on a full-time basis demands their accountability, it should by no means ensure it. Cricket Australia has every right to dismiss the selection panel as it stands, yet has chosen not to. The selectors are at fault for many of Australian Cricket's ills, but by no means all of them. Had Michael Beer been selected earlier in the Ashes series or Xavier Doherty not appeared at all, Australia likely would not have triumphed over the Old Enemy. Selection inconsistency (or is it Consistent backing of the selectors) has hurt the Australians badly, but not nearly as much as the current dearth of top-tier talent.

The third flaw in Simon Katich's notion is a simple one: Would he (or indeed anyone) wish to reward the current Australian selectors - probably handsomely - for the quality of work they've been performing? The thought of Andrew Hilditch walking home with $100,000+ per year from Cricket Australia brings me out in a frigid perspiration: he - nor David Boon or Jamie Cox - deserve that kind of money. It would be tantamount to throwing fistfuls of cash out the window of a skyscraper. Such an act would probably be a more efficient waste of money than pay the current panel.

The Argus review currently underway may suggest ways in which full-time selectors could be employed. One suggestion (this one's free, James Sutherland) would be to add further tasks to certain key roles: perhaps increase the responsibility and remuneration of the head of the Australian Cricket Academy, Bowling and Batting coaches? Neither Troy Cooley nor Justin Langer are employed full-time - use the cricket analysts already working within the system as they have done by bringing in Greg Chappell (for better or worse). Or, in a relatively even First Class Competition, expand the panel to seven and include one representative from each state, paid a bonus on top of their State salary. Perhaps both options are unworkable. It may even be that the best alternative is the one already employed.

Paying the selection panel more money would certainly command their attention and entice the best-qualified cricket judges into a position with Cricket Australia. But by doing so, the central board would be required to give them time to settle, develop a policy and then see rewards. Should this period be one year, suddenly there's a sizeable hole in CA's revenues, unlikely to be made up through attendances or prize money through improved performance.

It could simply be that the selectors have judged that Australia should no longer field their best XI, preferring more to develop players with a long term future, guided by Ponting, Clarke and Mike Hussey. Foolish, perhaps, but understandable given the age of recent Australian outfits. Katich would then not be seen as a leader and his position handed to Phil Hughes, a side effect of moving from "transition" to "full scale rebuilding". Make no mistake, that is what Australia now faces and the prospects of mid-term success are not welcoming. Messrs Hilditch, Boon, Cox and Chappell would be best served by simply declaring their policy to the nation, allowing everyone to understand; this would both enlighten the nation and allow for accountability.

While Simon Katich's record suggested he warranted a new deal (as did his partner in this media session, Stuart Clark), in order to make wholesale changes, unpopular decisions must be made and by dint of age - and availability of suitable replacements, for Shaun Marsh and Hughes await - they were amongst the first to be cut. Both have every right to be insulted by their treatment by Hilditch, Greg Chappell, Boon and Cox - and by extension, Cricket Australia. Katich, particularly, had both the form and runs to back up his claim.

Once a board run by domineering fools (c.f. the reasons behind World Series Cricket, among many other examples), Cricket Australia has regained such a a stature by becoming unwieldy and awash with self-interest. By paying large fees to selectors, that self-interest would become more than an exercise in conceit and begin to include large financial components. The way forward for Australian selection is unclear - but please, let's not pay for incompetence.

Image courtesy: livecricketmag.blogspot.com

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.

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.

The new breed of Sledge

Today's blog features Matthew Wood of Balanced Sports and Ben Roberts, local cricket icon, of Melbourne in Australia.

That the Australian Test XI is aging is no secret. At 35 years old, Ricky Ponting leads a side facing their own cricketing mortality – Simon Katich and Mike Hussey are likewise 35 and Brad Haddin 31. Even the “Great Hope for the Future” Michael Clarke is rising 30.

As we say a fond final farewell to the Golden Generation of Australian cricket born between 1965 and 1980 to enter the future, Matthew Wood and Ben Roberts sit down over a drink (with significant geographic difficulty) and name the XI who will line up in Brisbane for the first Ashes Test 2014-15.

Matt: So, the openers. After a series of sterling performances, I'm quite confident in installing Shane Watson as one opener. Really, since Mark Taylor's early days I don't think we've seen such a consistent opener even if his ability to convert scores into big scores is still a little under question. All of Hayden, Langer and Slater were all "feast or famine", especially in their latter days and I think that having someone who can be relied upon at the top is important. By this stage he'll be one of the veterans of the squad at 33 and probably his medium-pace bowling will have succumbed to age and infirmity a la Steve Waugh but he'll still be very valuable experience-wise. I feel dirty for saying so, but he is my roughie to captain the squad - if Pup Clarke can't handle it, he's probably the next-best bet. Partnering him is Phil Hughes, the crazy-eyed Northerner. There's no question his footwork isn't of the same quality of his eyes - how could they be, have you seen Phil Hughes' eyes? They're enormous, like two giant plates - but I'm confident by age 25 he will have worked out some of the slight flaws in his technique and is six years younger than the next best candidate in Shaun Marsh.

Ben: My dirty little secret is out now – after many years of imploring him to improve and not breakdown - I am a Shane Watson fan. His batting has become top class, and he provides the benefit of being an above average seamer, which for a part timer means that he is an exceptional asset to have in the squad. I don’t reckon bowling 10 overs a Test will cause undue problems (fingers currently crossed). I cannot agree with Matt’s assessment of Watson as a potential captain, just like no Richmond Aussie Rules fan could give Matthew Richardson the captaincy, and England football fan would give Wayne Rooney the armband.

I struggled to make a selection between Shaun Marsh and Phil Hughes to partner Watson. Marsh I believe is a more complete batsman, whereas Hughes does have flaws despite immense natural talent. My great hope is that the previous 12 months and in the period until Katich retires he is grabbed by the throat and told to work on his technique. Assuming this happens I am going put Hughes in the second opening slot.

Matt: At number three, I've plumped purely and simply for potential – Mitch Marsh of WA and of the Deccan Chargers. He wins out over Calum Ferguson because in Marsh there's the chance to be great – really great – and I think Ferguson could end up going down the Marcus North (and unfortunately Mike Hussey) road of “serviceable”. At number four comes the likely captain, “Pup” Clarke who also is the Grand Old Man of the squad at 33. He's shown enough dedication to turn his batting from exciting and full of flair to boring and staid. I think as Australia transitions into a younger team his game will have moved full circle from Julien Wiener to Allan Border, but probably without Border's consistency.

Ben: I have been a bit clever with my choice of number three, done a “reverse Katich/Langer”, shifting an opener down the order. I really believe that Shaun Marsh is a complete batsman and has a great technique for a defensive game as well as the ability to ‘cut loose’ given the occasion. He may never be one of the greats but I reckon he could serve the side well at three.

Usman Khawaja is a genuine superstar in the making. From the numbers he has put up early in his First Class career he has a hunger for runs, big runs (Prime Ponting-esque big runs). In 2014-2015 he will be coming into his prime. Usman gets my nod for the number 4 slot.

Matt: At five I've gone for Cameron White. At 31 he'll be in his prime and there's a convincing-but-flawed argument that he's the best batsman outside the national team at present and has been cursed by the disdain of Ponting and the fanfare that accompanied his straight-breaks onto the First-Class scene. He's another roughie to captain the side should Clarke fail as he's done so for Victoria since he was 20.

At six I've gone for Ferguson. As I said earlier he's serviceable and has the talent, application and technique to average 45 for his career – which is more than Mark Waugh averaged – and he's very good in the field. Hopefully his Test debut isn't far off.

Ben: Michael Clarke currently holds the number 5 position in the Australian side. Unfortunately I am not confident in his long term ability and the number 6 may be better with him shepherding the tailenders. By this time the ‘Pup’ may be heading for the vet’s needle! (Zoe - my unofficial sub-editor, professional life coach and dog - has just walked away at disgust to this last comment).

The man who should be in the Australian side in the 2010-11 series is Callum Ferguson from SA. I am heartened that his recent knee surgery didn’t have him drop into the abyss and he has been quickly recalled to the national setup. He will be at 5 in 2014-2015.

Matt: Never having been a big fan of Brad Haddin, in my role as sole national selector he's been dropped for inconsistency behind the stumps and too many brain-farts while at the crease. Tim Paine is probably the safest player in the team for mine as his recent performances for Australia have shown. He's gritty with the bat and has very safe hands, a real 'keeper and not a converted batsman a la Haddin or Mike Veletta.

Ben: The keeping position in my opinion is easy. Based on current performance Tim Paine deserves to continue in the role, and he is my choice as captain. This will raise eye-brows, even more when it is known that it was the Herald-Sun who first drew my attention to the possibility, But Paine has a good head on his shoulders. He bats above the shoulders well and his keeping is of high standard all day. He is my captain to take over from Ponting.

Matt: Nathan Hauritz now is unfortunately the best spin bowler in Australia. What that says about a country who's always had one quality turner is galling, but I don't see the other spinners (Steve Smith and John Holland particularly) being able to challenge him as a tweaker. Haury gets the no. 8 slot for mine.

Ben: I have pleaded on a number of forums and to pretty much who will listen to me that Australia needs to pick Steven Smith soon, and pick him as a full time spinner. Yes I know he can bat, but we cannot afford to lose someone of his immense talent and potential as a legspinner in favour of churning out a mediocre batting all-rounder. Assuming the Australian selectors do the right thing he comes in at eight, I know it is a big assumption.

Matt: Given that my number 8 is Nathan Hauritz, you can assume two things about my numbers 9, 10 and 11. First, they're rubbish with the willow, and secondly there's no room for Mitchell Johnson. “Zoolander” may be a strike bowler but I can't abide a striker who consistently outside the right-hander's off-peg angling to first slip. He'll also be 33 and though he's very fit, that's about the age that injuries begin to seriously slow down a bowler's pace – which given his lack of control, Mitch can't really afford.

Peter Siddle, who has disproved the above theory by being ruined by injuries since age 21. Fast, aggressive and generally accurate, he's probably going to be the spearhead of the Aussie attack by 2014 and will have taken over Hussey's “Underneath the Southern Cross” duties and the long-vacated role of Chief Sledger.

The other two bowlers are youngsters, like Marsh, picked solely on potential. Peter George has just made his Test debut and with his height if he can replicate even 75% of Glenn McGrath's accuracy then you've got a pretty fair fast bowler. He'll be 27 and should take Doug Bollinger's spot in the near future.

The future of Australian strike bowling is James Pattinson. The young Victorian is fast, moves the ball both ways and after only four First-Class matches sports an average less than 30. Moises Henriques (may my bones rot for jumping on the bandwagon), Alister McDermott, Josh Hazelwood and Mitch Staac are those that miss out.

Ben: Well I am also going for a three pronged pace attack. Mitchell Johnson will be older, but he has been selected and rewarded over his career thus far as much for his attractiveness to women than the odd great spell he delivers. So there is a fair chance he will hold his spot. Anyone who believes that he deserved the man of the match over Simon Katich against New Zealand in Brisbane in 2008 has rocks in their head.

Peter Siddle is another great love of mine. In my view he is a great competitor and workhorse bowler who epitomises everything good about competitive cricket. Such a bowler is needed to complement Johnson.

My final selection is the young NSW bowler Josh Hazelwood. Johnson will have lost a yard of pace and Siddle will be the stock bowler, we need someone with a bit of fire and who causes difficulty for the batsman. He is sending the pill down rapidly from 196cm. My apologies go to a number of players for this final slot.

Matt: My twelfth man is another bowling all-rounder in Jon Holland of Victoria. He's shown enough with bat and ball to say that he's probably the equal of Steve Smith in ability, if not in hair-colour and to paraphrase, all states were created equal amongst the Commonwealth, but some states were created more equal than others. Khawaja would be first batsman selected in event of injury of loss of form.

Ben: I am slightly disappointed that I was not able to select further players from my home state of Victoria, but the Vic’s seem to have great depth and team building potential without the standouts. NSW seems to be the spot for standout cricketers, and QLD the complete opposite, remembering Johnson has crossed to WA, with no current banana benders looking remotely likely of becoming a great.

All that's left now is just to wait and see. The summer of 2014-15 shapes up as an exciting time for Aussie cricket fans with some fresh faces on the scene. In fact the more we both have thought about the future, the more depressed we've become about Messrs Hussey, North, and Katich continuing through the 2010-11 ashes series.

Note from Editor: The authors of this article would like to make the Australian selectors aware that they will continue to be available for Australian selection in 2014-15. Indeed they will remain available until then time when the lure of wearing the whites on a lawn bowling green followed by a cheap beer or a carafe of house white becomes too strong to resist. Matt brings a ‘windmill’ bowling action akin to a bizarre hybrid of to the great New Zealander Ewan Chatfield and the less-great South African Paul Adams; Ben modestly describes himself as a multi talented cricketer in the mould of Keith Miller.

They are both available for positions as selectors as well.