The Gabba Debacle, viewed from where I'm sitting

There'll be a predictable tendency to blame the rotation policy for yesterday's debacle at the Gabba, and I'm certain it contributed to a score line that at one stageread 9-40 after winning the toss and electing to bat, but from where I'm sitting such statistics are very much in the nature of the beast when it comes to contemporary approaches to batting.

My take on this goes back thirty-odd years, when I had the occasional beer and lengthy yarn about cricketing matters with one Kerry Emery, who was a phys. ed. teacher at Heatley High, played A Grade for Wanderers in the Townsville competition and had progressed as far as representing Queensland Country.

It was a time when Wanderers had great difficulty in winning a two-day game, but put them into a fifty-over format and they almost invariably seemed to bring home the bacon. There was an apparent inconsistency there that intrigued me.

Kerry's explanation was that while the Wanderers bowling lineup lacked penetration it was very good when it came to containment, and they had a battery of bowlers who could put the ball there consistently. At the time (and remember there's been a lot of water that has flowed under this bridge over thirty years) if the ball landed there the options open to the batsmen were probably this or that, and it was possible to set a field to cover both of those, so containment was relatively straightforward.

What you've seen over the intervening decades has been an attempt to break out of the strictures that came with containment, and you can trace subsequent developments to the ability of smart observers to come up with ways to tweak the conventional wisdom to break free of restrictions and, subsequently, to rein the batsmen back in, a sort of continual ebb and flow between orthodoxy and innovation.

With this tendency to tweak and innovate we've also seen a move away from the old orthodoxies espoused in the early seventies' coaching manuals, which provided the settings which made containment a la Wanderers Townsville 1983 possible.

That tendency has, I think, been exacerbated with the rise of T20 cricket, which is, in itself, a reaction to the increasingly formulaic fifty over game, particularly that dead spot in the middle overs when the batting side accumulates runs while keeping wickets in hand so they can blaze at the end.

Yes, T20 can be exciting, but we're talking slogfest and technical adjustments that aren't going to be helpful in the longer forms of the game, particularly when the ball starts to do something.

And that, I think, is why we're going to see more scorelines like 9-40 on tracks that offer assistance in conditions where the ball does a bit and the bowlers get it right. Amid the reactions to yesterday's debacle it's easy to forget that Sri Lanka bowled very well from the start, and continued to do so until they eased off a tad towards the end of the innings.

Kulasekara and Malinga delivered a sell of swing bowling that was as good as any you're likely to see, and if Sri Lanka hadn't spelled Malinga at the end of the twenty-first over (with the score on 9-48) you'd have rated an eventual score in excess of 60 as unlikely.

And, it should be pointed out, Sri Lanka lost six wickets in chasing the very modest target.

If you're looking for an accurate assessment of what happened on the field, I'd point you towards the CricInfo match report here and if you're not quite sure about all this rotation business and the need to give some players a break, head over to Brydon Coverdale's article here.

Situations like the one Australia found themselves in yesterday are not a one-off occurrence, and they're not going to be limited to Australia either. Technical deficiences in the batting lineup, helpful wickets, conditions that are conducive to swing, seam, swerve or spin and bowlers who get it right on the day are going to produce similar results, and if you're inclined to suggest that Zimbabwe, say, or Afghanistan or cricketing superpowers like Canada and the USA have never been 9-40 in an ODI, there's a perfect response to that suggestion.

Put Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Canada or the USA up against that bowling in those conditions and they probably won't reach 9-40.

Sydney 2012: A Postscript

On yesterday's evidence, my conclusion at the end of yesterday's effort, namely:

Chasing 120, I think we can. Have the lead blow out to 150 and it starts to get dodgy. Make it 175 and I've got my doubts and 200 is where I'm starting to concede a considerable degree of difficulty

Looks to be reasonably close to the money, and much closer than some of my other predictions over the past couple of months.

In any case it's obvious we wouldn't have wanted to be chasing more than 200 batting last, and, despite a fairly impressive effort with the ball a side with a bit more steel and a dash less rash in the batting department would have been setting us a target closer to 250, and would probably have had a little more oomph in the bowling to make the target harder to reach.

Issues with the line feed in the whippersnipper meant I hadn't started on the parts of the yard I really wanted to get to when The Supervisor stuck her head around the door to advise it was nine-twenty-five, and had she managed to do that a little earlier (as requested) I'd probably have put the whippersnipping in the it'll still be there tomorrow basket and caught the action live.

As it was, by the time I'd completed the tasks I'd set myself (and spent close to three-quarters of an hour fiddling with glorified fishing line) it was nine-for, and by the time I'd had a shower and started on brunch the tenth wicket partnership was still in progress and the target climbing steadily. Herath and Lakmal had gone in the way tailenders are supposed to, but Pradeep stuck around for close to an hour as Chandimal farmed the strike. As far as the bowling went, of course, it was a case of not seeing, cannot tell, but in the end the new ball did what it's supposed to do and the target was set at 141.

You can argue all you like about what might have happened had Warner got going, but the point here is that he didn't, and the new ball did what it's always likely to do and he went for a duck. Cowan looked very iffy, probably due to uncertainty as to his spot in the pecking order and Hughes dominated the scoring.

Both went lbw to Herath, which didn't come as much of a surprise and with Clarke holing out for 29 when Cowan went at 4-108 it was up to Hussey and Wade to get us home safely. Wade didn't quite last the distance, bowled by Herath nine short of the target, and all round Mitch got off the mark with the winning run, depriving Mr Cricket of the scripted end to a glorious career.

Looking back it's obvious we've still got significant question marks about every place in the batting order, including Clarke's (though in his case it's a question of Four or Five).

The bowling looks a little better, and you'd suggest that Siddle, Bird and Starc/Johnson would do pretty well until Pattinson is fit, and there are a few other options out there that could do with a bit of assessing.

So there are any number of questions that need close and careful scrutiny, and a limited number of avenues through which that scrutiny can be achieved. In days gone by you'd have set off on a tour to England with a squad of seventeen or eighteen and three or four first class games to find your feet before the first Test. Not any more.

These days you're lucky to get a one-dayer and a three dayer against England A.

So, while there are those in the media who are decrying rotations and spelling, Hughesy's response is to ask when we're going to get a chance to look at some options. Pat Howard is on the record as saying that we're probably only going to field our strongest side against South Africa and England, a suggestion that produced all sorts of objections, so let's pause and take a closer squiz at things.

We're sitting at Three in the Test rankings (on 117, behind England on 118 and South Africa on 123) with Pakistan (109), India (105) Sri Lanka (92) and West Indies (91) between us and the also-rans.

New Zealanders would bristle at that last remark, and start pointing to Bellerive 2011 but, seriously, with their rating on 79 and daylight between seventh and eighth it's hard to think of a more accurate label. Bangladesh rates a 0, and Zimbabwe hasn't played enough matches.

So the first question I'd put to the decriers is who they'd include in a touring party to New Zealand, Bangladesh or Zimbabwe?

Given the question marks about the batting at the moment, and the prospect of tours to India and England on the horizon you'd probably go with close to your side for England if you were heading to New Zealand first, and close to the side you'd be taking to the subcontinent if you were heading to Bangladesh.

In a more ideal universe, you wouldn't be heading to England and New Zealand, or to Bangladesh and India, in the same year, so your touring party to both of those would include a core of established players fleshed out with players who you'd expect to go well in English or Indian conditions, the same way you'd pick blokes who'd be likely to do OK in South Africa on a tour to Zimbabwe.

Playing Pakistan isn't going to happen on their home turf any time soon, so when you play them away you're looking at England or the Gulf, and in the latter case you'd be tailoring your selections to fit climatic conditions you don't find anywhere else in the cricketing world.

Given the crowded schedule players will need to be spelled from time to time, so when are you going to do it?

And what happens when an established player is forced to withdraw for personal/family reasons? No one spelled out the detail when Haddin headed back from the West Indies, but recent reports involving the coincidence of the words kid and cancer suggest a refusal to allow him leave would attract descriptors like unreasonable and cold-hearted.

So, what have we got with this ODI squad, remembering we're playing Sri Lanka in a five game series that doesn't mean a thing apart from bums on seats?

Well, for a start, missing from the Test XI are Clarke, Wade and Hussey. Unreasonable? Possibly, if you're looking to give Mr Cricket a last hurrah, but Clarke has to be rested some time, and giving Wade a break offers a touch of reassurance to Haddin and a reminder to Paine that he needs to deliver with the bat.

But with Hussey not being part of the calculations for the next World Cup what'd be the point of running him around for another ten meaningless games?

So who else is missing from the Test Twelve? Warner, who won't be missing for long, and Cowan, who was probably never going to enter ODI calculations anyway. Out of the bowlers, they're definite Siddle is Tests only, which is fair enough, and Lyon probably isn't going to enter into ODI calculations either.

The only bloke from the Test eleven who might be entitled to feel hard done by (and you can underline that might half a dozen times and insert a couple of question marks after it) is Bird.

Now, I'm possibly on rather risky ground here, but I suspect the selection panel started with the Test Eleven and put lines through the names that need a spell and don't come into calculations for the short forms. That's the way I'd be looking at it if I was the National Selector, anyway.

So, who's left?

Hughes, Johnson and Starc. Check the exclusions. Warner (rested), Cowan (not in the picture), Clarke (rested), Hussey (retired), Wade (rested), Siddle and Lyon (not in the picture).

So, who to draft in? You're going to need a captain, since none of the three names you've got will be filling that role and a keeper. Anybody who doesn't think Bailey and Haddin would get the nod there has serious issues with reality.

At that point you put the names on a list in batting order, which gives you Hughes, Bailey, Haddin, Johnson, Starc.

Haddin and Hughes can both open if necessary, but presumably you won't use Haddin in that role when we're batting second, so you need another opener, and Finch looks to be an obvious candidate, so:
Finch, Hughes, Bailey, Haddin, Johnson, Starc.

Which is where we turn to the middle order options and slot in Khawaja as the next cab off the rank. There's a spot there for another bloke in the middle, possibly two, depending on whether Haddin goes in at Six or Seven, and at the moment we've only got two front line bowlers. I don't think there's any surprise in Clint McKay or Xavier Doherty, So, for a squad of thirteen:

Finch, Hughes, Khawaja, Bailey, (Five), (another bat), Haddin, (all-rounder at Seven?), Johnson, Starc, McKay, (another quick), Doherty.

Since Glenn Maxwell was in the twelve for the Test he's the logical choice for the all-rounder at Seven.

And you'd have got to that point pretty quickly. Most of he discussion around the table would have concerned those last three spots, and that's where it really becomes line ball.  Whether another panel would come up with Steve Smith and David Hussey for the batting slots (and noting both can bowl) is the sort of thing you could spend half an hour debating, but Cutting for the last bowler's spot looks like a logical move.

The interesting bit will come when Clarke comes back, and Warner, Wade and Bird are back in calculations. There'll still be eight ODIs to play at that stage, so there'll be a bit of chopping and changing, but if we were heading to the ODI World Cup rather than the Twenty20 in June how's about this as a side:

Warner, Finch, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Hussey/Maxwell, Haddin, Johnson, Starc, McKay/Bird, Doherty.

Slot Bailey in for Clarke, and that's possibly close to the Twenty20 World Cup side…

Sydney 2012: Into Day Four

Well, we almost got it right yesterday when I opined:

So it's down to how well Wade can bat with the tail this morning, and how long the whole operation can last once we've got past lunch, if, indeed, we get that far. 

We didn't, as it turned out, get to lunch, and as things started to happen in a flurry in the last session there was a strong likelihood we wouldn't get into Day Four, but that's getting ahead of the developing narrative.

Wade did his job with the support of the tail, something that looked fairly dodgy at first, but resuming at 6-342 another 42 with Siddle (a 77 run partnership, tick there), with Starc and Lyon not chipping in with much (when Lyon went it was 9-393, with the lead on a mere 99) it looked like we were in for a tough run in the second half of the match.

Wade farmed the strike rather well, Bird stuck around the way Starc and Lyon didn't and with thirty-odd needed for the century he managed it thanks to a mix of riding his luck and a bit of judicious hitting. Impressive. The 148  run lead was a bit better than I'd expected.

I wasn't surprised to see Clarke signalling them in shortly thereafter, and wouldn't have been surprised if he didn't, since there was possibly only one ball in it. The timing of the declaration meant there were four overs before lunch, and I wasn't quite sure what was going on as Karunaratne had a go and Dilshan seemed to be taking his time. It was 0-18 at lunch with Karunaratne at 17 and Dilshan still to get off the mark.

And through the first hour after lunch it looked like we were going to be chasing a reasonable target batting last. Dilshan went with the total on 24, caught low down by Hughes at third slip, and seemed reluctant to depart and at drinks they were still one down and about half way to wiping out the deficit.

At that point, I reckoned there was a reasonable chance we'd be chasing around 200, but shortly after tea (1-130 off 31 overs) the wheels fell off. Strange.

It started when Karunaratne was given out caught behind, and didn't refer the decision, despite Jytawardene's suggestion that he do so. Had he done so, he would have stayed, since there was no forensic hot spot on the bat and they don't use the snickometer in the DRS. There was a definite ping on the snicko, he knew he hit it and that, it seemed, was that.

But things turn on little bits like that. They hadn't wiped out the deficit at that point, and once they had Thirimanne went hooking into a well set trap in the deep with the total on 155, making it effectively 3-7. Samaraweera was caught in the deep off Lyon three runs later and with Matthews run out and Jayawardene caught at slip things were looking far better than they should have been at 7-202, effectively 7-54, and when they went off at stumps that lead had crept out to 77.

So here we go into what must certainly be the last day with two things to look forward to.
Actually, make that three.

First, how long do Chandimal and Herath stick around? Hughesy's tip is that we'll be chasing around 120.

Second, can we do it? Chasing 120, I think we can. Have the lead blow out to 150 and it starts to get dodge. Make it 175 and I've got my doubts and 200 is where I'm starting to concede a considerable degree of difficulty.

Third, I see Mr Inverarity is announcing the squad for the first round of one-dayers, which is going to very interesting indeed. The call of Sunday morning yard duty, however, rules out too much in the way of speculation...

Sydney 2013: Into Day Three...

A glance down the figures on the scorecard might suggest things are sitting in a postcode that's comfortably adjacent to Hunky Dory at 6 for 342, a lead of 48 with four wickets in hand, but when you glance at the names, the methods of dismissal and the bowling figures things aren't quite so rosy.

And while we're looking for answers to questions we keep on getting handed new questions.

One of them came in the form of Watto's request for his old slot at the top of the innings back. The full story's here and suggests he's reconsidering his future as an all-rounder though he still seems to be keen to bowl in the shorter formats. This, mind you, in a story that also points out he broke down in Melbourne after bowling 47 overs in Hobart.

That, of course, came in the wake of the Hilfenhaus injury, and represented more than you might have asked him to bowl under different circumstances, though one also notes twenty in the first innings with the broken down Hilfie on 12.2, Starc 24 and Siddle 25 and a bit. Hmmm, hmmm and hmmm again.

Bowling Watto is an important part of an attack if he's there and fit. Assuming he isn't bowling and someone breaks down, what then? Just this once, Watto?

In any case, whether he bowls or not, while he's looking for the old opening spot back, Hughes, it seems (at least on the basis of this story is determined to make the number three spot his own, which would look good for Watto (there's one rival out of the way).

The problem, however, at least from where I'm sitting, lies in run outs.

Watto and Katich had their moments, Watto and Warner the same, and now, of course, we've Warner and Cowan and the run outs keep coming.

Cowan blew a big chance to settle his spot (and undermine the Watto to open argument) by getting himself run out yesterday, and the Hussey run out on Clarke's call suggested it's an area that needs work, but, seriously, against this attack on this deck someone out of Warner, Hughes and Clarke should have gone on to the ton. On yesterday's evidence Johnson isn't a Seven, and we'll probably get further confirmation in the second innings, which is where I'm directing the crystal ball at the moment.

Forty-eight runs on with four wickets in hand, it's obviously a question of how many more, and how long we last. Wade has had his moments along the way to 47 not, and you'd reckon we need a first innings lead of around 150 to avoid what looks like being a rather tricky little equation batting last.

Go into the change of innings a hundred on and you're looking at bowling Sri Lanka out for less than 250, which might be quite doable but would leave us chasing 150 on a deck that's starting to do something for Herath and Dilshan. At this point, after 88 overs we've had 47 from the seamers, who've managed 1/210, while Dilshan's 19 overs of offies have delivered 1/58 while Herath has returned 2/69 off 22.

The seamers, in other words, aren't breaking through, and are going at four an over, while the tweakers are getting wickets (two of 'em caught behind, Clarke caught in the deep) at around three an over. Chase 150 in that last dig and you're looking at batting around fifty overs, which will almost certainly go overwhelmingly to the spinners.

Could be very tricky, that one, and it becomes trickier with each increment in the ask.

If we can manage a lead of 150, the notional bowl them out for less than figure runs up to 300.

I think, in other words, that chasing 150 batting last is going to be tricky. Maybe not impossible, but definitely tricky.

So it's down to how well Wade can bat with the tail this morning, and how long the whole operation can last once we've got past lunch, if, indeed, we get that far. I'll also be interested to see how we bowl the second time around, partly because I suspect we're looking at a track that's moving towards what we're likely to encounter in India…

Sydney 2012: Into Day Two...

I was late switching on the TV yesterday, and when I did they were right into the Tony Greig tributes, so I didn't get a chance to pick up on the forensic details about the pitch, so I've got no way of knowing whether there was anything in the track to justify Michael Clarke's decision to insert Sri Lanka after he won the toss.

On paper, with the eleven we chose to take into the game, you'd reckon there'd have to be plenty of soup in there for the quicks, and on the evidence of the first session you'd be forced to conclude that anything that was seen in there was, largely, an illusion.

There were plenty of comments early about the four quicks being used as a means to avoid rotating someone out to bring Starc back in, but I'm more inclined to look at it as a means of evaluating the stocks we've got on hand, the same way that playing Maxwell at Seven or a traditional Sydney turner would have given us a good look at the off-spinning options.

The same way winning the toss and batting might have done a bit to sort out where we are with the top three, and would have delivered those two offies into the position where they'd be bowling last on a wicket that usually turns before the end of Day Five.

But no, for whatever reason, we went in with the four quicks and the chance to sort out a pecking order among them, and the simultaneous rating of Mitchell Johnson as a de facto all-rounder batting Seven. The alternative to that, one assumes, would have been to rest Lyon and go with Maxwell in the spinning department, batting him at Seven.

So, what have we established in the bowling department?

Well, for a start, it's obvious Bird now comes into contention for a regular spot in an attack that's approaching the best we can put on the park. It's early days yet, but in a situation where you're looking at First Choices and Fill Ins Bird looks to be heading towards the former rather than the latter.

The First Choices are the group you'd be looking at a (close to) automatic selections when they're fit, the Fill Ins are the blokes you use to cover when someone isn't.

And second, if Mitch can't cut it with the bat when the time comes yesterday's bowling performance suggests a Fill In rating rather than a First Choice. On yesterday's evidence, if we're looking at a left arm quick, Starc is the first choice and Mitch fills the vacancy if he's not fit and available under the rotation policy.

Mitch looked a lot sharper with the new ball in Melbourne than he did bowling second change yesterday, and, in any case, I think you want him getting a run with the new ball and a licence to menace with the thing while it's still hard and bouncy.

In any case, on what appears to be a reasonable batting track at the moment, he gets his chance with the bat at some point over the next two days and again, possibly, on Day Five, when the track should be taking turn. That should give some indication as far as all-round Mitch is concerned.

The big question, and the one that remains largely unanswered, is how we get three ninety-over days out of the way without bowling anyone past that fifty over mark that supposedly brings an increased likelihood of injury. Your chances of doing that are far better with five front line bowlers, which is where all-round Mitch or bowling Watto become key factors.

That fifty over mark, of course, is probably able to be bent. Siddle, I think, would go closer to sixty or sixty-five, while an up and coming tyro tearaway (Cummins) might be flat out getting to forty.

I think it's sage to assume that our best three quicks (with associated tags) at the moment are Siddle as leader of the attack, go to man and workhorse, Starc as the lefty and Bird as the nagging economy man. He doesn't like the McGrath comparisons, but that's the role he'll probably be asked to fill. Pattinson, when fit, I think is the strike man, and you can probably cast your eye around the first class scene and spot contenders who could cover for each of those four, with Johnson/Starc being one obvious match.

So now, I guess, it comes down to how we do with the bat, with plenty of questions to be sorted out on what should be a fairly decent batting track against an attack that shouldn't threaten. With these two innings as the last of the long form until we head to India in February there are several boxes that can be ticked or replaced with question marks.

The inquisitive reader may be wondering, amid all this, about Hughesy's assessment of the opposition, who showed a bit more stickability than expected on a track that didn't have the demons you might have expected from the four quicks and send them in side of things. Assessing the opposition, however, isn't really my thing, particularly when the opposition are ranked at Number Six, and are apparently unlikely to be playing any more Test cricket in the immediate future.

The two Sri Lankan commentators on the radio yesterday were doing a rather detailed forensic job on their Test prospects, with Russell Arnold, in particular, impressing me with his attention to detail, consideration of possibilities and analysis of the factors involved. Much of it went by to the keeper since I don't have anything resembling a detailed knowledge of the Sri Lankan cricket sign except that they're apparently close to broke, that Mahela has problems with the board at home and they're probably going to be depending on the money they can pull in from the short forms to keep things viable.

That said, yesterday's display with the bat suggests there's talent there, and they're going to be competitive when circumstances aren't too obviously weighed against them. Now it's a matter of seeing how they bowl.

The logical assumption is, of course, that we'll match their three hundred odd today, and hopefully bat on well into tomorrow establishing a lead that will need to be run down. That'll be difficult with just the five specialist bats plus 'keeper Wade and all-round Mitch, so you'd be inclined to suspect a possible lead around 150, a Sri Lankan response through Day Four and the prospect of a potentially nasty chase on the last day.

At least that's the way it looks now. Let's see what happens in an hour's time (he wrote as the computer clock ticks past 8:23 Queensland non-Daylight Saving Time)…

And as we cruise towards the final Test of the Ausralian summer we are, once again left scratching the old noggin and trying to figure out what this all means.

This, at least in this particular instance, being the inclusion of Glenn Maxwell in the twelve, presumably as the spinning all-rounder on a Sydney track that was rumoured to be headed back towards its old status as a happy hunting ground for the tweakers.

Selection panels move in mysterious ways, like bees through the stomach, though from time to time you can examine the entrails of a particular decision and take a fair guess at the thinking behind the seemingly strange circumstance.

In this case, you'd have figures they were looking at the rumours and covering the options, and then decided the rumours proved unfounded, so the four quicks option was deemed the appropriate way to go. Fine. Tick.

Given that situation you might then start wondering why Lyon gets the run, when you could have gone with the other spinner (the all-rounder) at Seven, and the answer there is fairly obvious.

We're covering the bases on the assumption that Watto ceases to be a functional part of the pace battery.

Or, at least that's the way it looks, which is quite fine from where I'm sitting, provided Watto becomes responsible for lifting that conversion rate in the batting department. He should be good enough to do it, and if he can't he can't hold down either a place in the batting order or, more particularly, the vice captaincy.

That's ironic in its own way because he gained his slot at the top of the order because we needed another bowler to cover for Mitchell Johnson in the last Ashes series over there. Now, it seems, there's a very real prospect that all-rounder Mitch may have to bat Seven to cover for non-bowling Watto.

Actually, I'm inclined to read something else into Maxwell as twelfth man, particularly if he's kept on hand in Sydney rather than being shot off to fulfil further Big Bash commitments with the Melbourne Stars, whose next game happen to be at The Gabba this evening.

Having hauled him away from the white ball whack it gave a chance to give him a red ball workout, which is, of course, something he won't be getting a lot of between now and late February. At least that's the way I'm inclined to think after reading this in The Australian this morning.

Anyway, having named the four quicks, Michael Clarke has done the right thing and won the toss that's where we cut this little effort short, right about the time they're about to do the silent bit for Tony Greig...