The future of Australian cricket

More than just a wrap of the first test this is comment on what will be the next 10 years of Australian cricket. It's tempting to generalise from one test - especially when on the winning side - but perhaps more informative is posing questions which need to be answered along the line.

Clarke commenced his captaincy with a comprehensive win but more importantly is how he went about it. Clarke has demonstrated a desire to attack reflected by his field settings. As a batsman he was aggressive but sensible but time will tell to what extent captaincy affects his other role. In his vice-captain he has a partnership breaker with the ball and a flaying opening bat. You can't help admire how Watson has found his place and continues to impress. Can Watson remain an opener? Should he? It appears the middle order is not in anyone's mind for Watto in the foreseeable future.

This author is critical of Ponting playing at all. If he doesn't make runs in this or the next series, why on Earth would you wait for him to get through a lean patch? His runs could be being made by Marsh or Ferguson and for that reason in this author's view he is being selfish and should get the shoulder tap.

Harris has returned with aplomb and the pace attack seems to be the least of Aus' worries. Copeland is the new Clark and Pattison, Starc and others wait with Bollinger in the wings. The big question is spin and Lyon grabbed a Michelle on debut; on the best day to bowl at Galle. His 2nd innings figures are nothing to write home about but he hopefully has 2 more tests against some quality batsmen to show his diversity and application. Johnson will just always mix brilliance with crap; although he looked to be a bit more consistent in the first test.

Hughes has clearly worked hard and looks to be determined to prove people wrong. Some believe he is simply not test level but few people fluke tons against quality bowling attacks. He and Khawaja deserve time to solidify their spots now they have been given the opportunity. The indicator of change in selection policy will be there for all to see during this and the next 3 series (vs South Africa away - 2 tests - and then the summer at home against NZ and India). If the baggy green door revolves as frequently as it has previously noone has learned a thing and we can expect more hesitant and defensive cricket from players unsure of themselves and their place in the team.

The one guy who should be looking over his shoulder is Haddin. Paine is a better keeper and a polished batsman; also likely to take over captaincy from Clarke in time. I wouldn't be surprised if Paine is behind the stumps this summer. Hussey, enough said. He is the man.

At the end of the day it's just great to have test cricket back.

Leftriteout
Down the Wicket

What to do with a dead rubber

And so the Aus summer moves to sunny Hobart for the finale in what has been an incredible summer of test cricket. With so many pundits declaring the West Indies a far from formidable force (one even declaring after Brisbane they should be stripped of test status) and the unpredictability of Pakistan a 'known' quantity, this summer has produced cricket few would have expected possible. What is even more amazing is the fact that Aus have won 4 from 5 tests. How often the results do not truly indicate the state of play! A miracle turn-around (and negative tactics plus capitulation) plus a batting effort to save a test have prevented a very different scoreline for Aus. Ian Chappell made an apt observation about Aus cricket pointing out that despite world best players exiting its side, it still knows how to win when it gets a sniff. Pakistan may need to learn this with a young group with a great deal of talent; to do this they must play more test cricket. West Indies are beginning to rebuild from almost scratch. Chanderpaul will retire very soon but they have found players who can score freely and hold an end. In the bowling stocks it's important to remember they didn't have one of their strike bowlers for the whole series and lost the other after the first test.

So, what was my point? Ah yes; the dead rubber. I must admit that usually I advocate for such matches to give 'fringe' players a run and get some match practice into those who have had a lean summer. In the case of the bowlers I think all have done a job and could well deserve a rest. This is, of course, not possible and probably stupid. Johnson has bowled so many overs that I think there's a case for giving him a break. He plays all forms of the game! Bollinger is proving his worth and Siddle may need to still prove his. I get the feeling that Siddle will forever be scrutinised more than most; likely because he will have the Darren Gough syndrome whereby he doesn't get the poles next to his name to reflect his effort. On the batting front only Watson can say he has performed consistently, with Katich coming back from an injury and therefore likely to regain his place. Of course if you leave out Watson you also lose valuable overs. So, little change to the batting lineup then. The middle order has been awful at times. Hussey can hold his head up after playing a major role in giving Aus a chance to win in Sydney. North, Ponting and Clarke could do with some time in the middle.

Summation; give Johnson and Watson a break. Put in Shaun Marsh or Phil Hughes and, well, who takes Johnson's spot? While the Aus bowling lineup is quickly finding its feet as a unit I'm not so sure there are the bowlers circling the Shield comp. Geeves and Mackay have looked promising, Laughlin and Nannes perhaps? The key is how these guys step up to test cricket. I guess there's only one way to find out. Another player who has done the yards is Hauritz. Although he seems to hurt himself every time he plays he's backed it up again and again. Personally I sense that CA is keen for him to be an almost permanent fixture of the Aus 11 and will seek for him to get as many overs in the middle as possible. With the latest injury being a left finger, leave him in and bowl the proverbial out of him in Hobart.

Looking ahead Aus heads to New Zealand for two tests and of course some limited over stuff. Then we wait til next summer for the Ashes. In between of course there are various ODI and 20/20 tournaments. While Aus will remain a frequently playing test nation, it appears it cannot avoid being a victim of limited over fascination. After the second test in NZ there is only the first test against England to look forward to. For the players who make up the Aus limited over squads and test squad there is no chance of playing county cricket. They can only hope to get a run for their state before the Ashes starts. This infuriates me. Batting the middle overs of an ODI or playing 20/20 full stop does not prepare you in any real way for test cricket. Nor does bowling 4 overs with power plays. It's a vicious circle for mine as players like Ferguson, Hughes et al can play all year round but find it hard to get and cement a spot in the Aus side, while national reps can struggle for the baggy green but have few opportunities to fine-tune in longer versions of the game. I wish CA still treated 20/20 like the gimmick it is and just use guys like Warner who will never play test cricket.

We'd all be great administrators, wouldn't we!

Ouch, what just happened?

Let this be a lesson to selection of overseas touring parties: ALWAYS pick backups for each area of your team. This means: batsman (middle order), keeper, pace bowler and spin bowler. Obviously this depends on the depth to choose from; for instance if the spinner you're talking about couldn't turn the ball to save their life don't bother. I know that David Boon used to take the gloves on occasions but with the tendency for keepers now to be more than half-decent batsmen too, I think there's even more reason to include Wade or Manou. When a pace bowler breaks down obviously there needs to be someone to take their place; same goes for a batsman. It begs the question; what were the selectors going to do if Katich or Clarke broke down. With the latter this was certainly going to be a risk. What if it occurred two days before the start of a test (which it has)? Contingency plans are indicative of good preparation. No doubt if North had not eaten some rancid wild boar there would be nothing to say on the issue. But because Aus danced with the culinary devil the great debutant is lying in a hospital bed and the first 11 is missing a number six.

It must also be acknowledged that day one of the third test highlighted how close South Africa and Australia are. If one team is not quite on the ball this is exploited ferociously by their opposition. I would ask, however, if Macdonald is picked as an allrounder then why would he bat at seven while Haddin is put up to six. That being said your top order is picked to do a job (ie take the shine off the new ball and make runs!) and your number eight should be getting bonus runs: not required runs. Whereas it appears RSA has made good changes; at least with their opening batsmen so far, Aus has looked short with the bat and no options that could have prevented such an event .

RSA came out with more purpose and fire than in the previous two tests and the Aus batsmen were not up to the task (save Katich, Haddin and Johnson). This was to be expected as pride is on the line for RSA. Hughes will hopefully have learnt another lesson about intent and respecting the bowling, the selectors will hopefully have learnt a lesson about picking a touring party for England. And Hussey will ideally have learnt a lesson about one's place in the team before the first test of the Ashes when he is dropped.