Bring On Uncle Fester

Since I’ve got a largish fiction project I’m trying to finish and the morning walk usually provides the opportunity to nut out the next bit, you might suppose developments like the overnight sacking of the Australian cricket coach will be seen as an unwelcome intrusion, since it’s something Hughesy will feel obliged to comment on.

Mickey Arthur’s sacking, and the appointment of Darren Lehmann to replace him, does, however, bring a couple of long-standing issues to the fore, and not just the most obvious ones concerning homework and Joe Root’s wig.

Note the emphasis on the just there. One can’t help suspecting that there’s a lot more going on under the surface with a team that would seem to include a number of individuals with egos larger than many small planets.

Let’s start with the seemingly minor issue of who the members of the Australian cricket team actually listen to.

Elite sports people, of course, are in the position where they’re bombarded with opinions, criticism, helpful and unhelpful suggestions from all directions, friends and opponents. Maybe not quite twenty-four seven, but not far off it.

So you can understand why they might be inclined to be selective about who they listen to. Cricketers who’ve played at the highest level tend, as far as I can see, to only heed the advice of their notional peers, and the current CEO, being a moderately performed ex-Shield player and the High Performance manager, being a Rugby person would not seem to qualify.

That’s not a peculiarly Australian issue. Indian Test players weren’t inclined to heed Greg Chappell’s opinions and suggestions, Bennett King might have coached Queensland to a couple of Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup wins but didn’t last too long as coach of the West Indies. The Astute Reader would probably be able to come up with other international examples.

Much of this, of course, has come about since the emergence of the professional coach, and the rise of national coaching accreditation, something that has allowed a number of moderately performed first class players to build up a career in the game. Take a look around the periphery of most sides that can afford the outlay and you’ll find any number of support staff, any or all of whom can be selectively ignored if you’re not inclined to see their presence as important.

That, from where I’m sitting, would appear to be the source of the recent situation. Mickey Arthur might have been the nominal coach, but wasn’t seen as someone certain players needed to pay attention to when he’s trying to lay down the law.

Of course, if you’re supposedly a vital member of the side you can ignore him but he won’t have the clout to discipline you because he needs you if he wants to win games and hold his job.

That would seem to be the explanation for the homework incident, where a five minute task that might be useful getting everybody’s minds on the job after a break is ignored because four blokes don’t feel it’s important.

On that basis, I’d have to applaud the decision to terminate the contract, and would definitely endorse the choice of Darren Lehmann as Arthur’s replacement because if the current lot won’t listen to an Australian who’s had an extended run at the highest level and showed himself to be reasonably astute in the coaching department there isn’t much chance they’ll listen to anyone.

So I’d like to be a fly on the wall when the Ashes squad sits down at Taunton later today and Lehmann starts laying out the way things are going to operate from here on. Hopefully it’ll be a case of This is how things are going to be rather than Look fellas, I hope all this is all right with you, but I’d like to...

It’s not as if these things are rocket surgery. Ten Tests where we need to take twenty wickets and score more runs than the opposition. There are procedures that need to be put in place, of course, practice routines, training drills, all the nuts and bolts stuff, but that’s not rocket surgery either.

What really needs to be cemented in place is a team mind set, and that’s where the rules, and a bit of arrogance comes in. This is the Australian team. Traditionally, we’re hard bastards in baggy green caps. Second best is not acceptable. That sort of mentality.

Something like an Ashes tour, where one presumes the transport arrangements involve a team vehicle that’ll shuttle back and forth between accommodation and venue, as well as between venues, would seem to be the perfect opportunity to build a competitive unit. Leave the wives, girlfriends and families on the periphery while the job gets done and no fraternising with the enemy.

Remember, in an era when anything you do can appear on Twitter within minutes of it happening, team protocols are there for a reason, and must be adhered to. If that involves appointing a committee who’ll sort out a social itinerary that’s loaded with interesting activities in reasonably secure locations, go for it. You can have a reasonably good time, bond as a unit and, hopefully get that urn back sooner rather than later.

And if there’s anyone on board the bus who isn’t prepared to commit themselves and follow the team protocols, send them straight home.

For a bit of further reading, try Victorian leggie Bryce McGain (here) and Brydon Coverdale (here).

The Warner Imbroglio

I was going to leave this one alone, but a day’s road trip to Townsville gave plenty of time to ponder the issues, a FaceBook tag from Angry provided the excuse and the story continues to unfold, leaving plenty of entrails to sift through.

A couple of points, however, before we move on to the implications of Mr Warner’s latest indiscretion.

The first of them is the old saw that a champion team will always beat a team of champions. Call it Point One, if you like.

Point Two comes with my perception of the Australian cricket team’s job description, The job, as far as I can see, is to ensure that the Australian team sits as close as possible to #1 in each of the three forms of the game.

Point Three is my long-standing belief that anything less than a two, three, four or five-nil whitewash in a two, three, four or five Test series means there are probably things that could have been done or managed better.

So, in a ten Test Double Ashes series unless there’s a score line that reads 10-nil in our favour we’re looking at a performance that could have been better. A nine-nil or eight-nil scoreline without a ball being bowled in the other two Tests would probably rate as well, but there’s still the possibility that something could have been done better.

Finally, Point Four, straight from my Sports Psychology bible: Pressure is something that you put on yourself.

In the light of those four points, and in response to Angry’s very thoughtful act in directing my attention here, my short response is that Warner should have been on the next plane home. A phone call from the manager of three of the four NQ Primary Schools teams I coached produced an Of course he should in response to a statement of that opinion.

By the way, I read that article before the road trip, and it had a fair bearing on the conclusions I drew from the cogitations.

When Jarrod Kimber wrote: Warner's punch isn't a one off for him, and many young Aussie players are doing things that are either blatantly stupid, or amazingly unprofessional way too often over the last couple of years, I couldn’t agree more.

One also notes that the article, apart from David Warner, also cites incidents involving Mitchell Marsh, Luke Pomersbach, Daniel Christian, and Chris Lynn and, of course, the Homework Quartet (Shane Watson, Mitchell Johnson, James Pattinson and Usman Khawaja) and claims the Homework business followed on from the World Twenty20, where a player was heard undermining the captain George Bailey to opposition players.

Cast your eye back over that list. Note, among those names, most of the major candidates for the long-yearned for Australian equivalent of Botham, Flintoff or Kallis, that is, and to wit the genuine pace bowling all-rounder, as well as the once in a generation, century, whatever Johnson, who’s been mentioned as a distinct possibility to develop into that role.

A later article (here) has Clint McKay, Mitchell Marsh, Phil Hughes, Matthew Wade and Glenn Maxwell joining Warner on the evening in question, though it doesn’t give details of the England players who were there. The headline in that story contains allegations action was only taken against Dave Warner after former vice-captain Shane Watson complained of double standards, though the story has been vehemently denied by captain Michael Clarke and Cricket Australia (CA) officials (here)

Watson, of course, having missed a Test because of his failure to do his homework, with Warner (the way I read it) initially looking like only missing the Champions Trophy game against Sri Lanka for what could, under other circumstances with different people involved, have resulted in criminal charges. According to the article Cricket Australia only became aware of the incident when the team management stood Warner down from the Sri Lanka game. Watson might be a noted spitter of the dummy but in this case, if those details are accurate, he’s right on the money.

Watson missed that Test, along with the other three players, because they failed to complete an in house task that wouldn’t have come under the spotlight if the management group hadn’t decided to act. This incident, had they tried to sweep it under the carpet, had the potential to become much uglier than it has turned out to be, and it’s ugly enough already.

The first objection to suggestions that Warner should have been on the plane home is, of course, going to be He’s Dave Warner. We might need him. It’s The Ashes.

Bullshit.

There’s no one in the current Australian team who needs to be given any leeway at all except for the captain, whose degenerative back problem is a long-known issue that is being addressed very carefully. Cast your eye over this article from The Australian if you need to be persuaded about that one.

If you’re going to use the We need him, it’s the Ashes line, Michael Clarke’s the only one it applies to.

Cast your eye down the rest of the likely Test side and you might be tempted to claim the presence of Watson or whoever is vital if we’re going to win, but in that case maybe winning the urn isn’t so important.

In the past we’ve avoided biting bullets because perceived potential exceeds the performance we’re getting, which means, for example, that we need Mitchell Johnson in the side, because he could be a match winner. On the other hand he might bowl absolute tripe and get carted so we’d better have another bowler in there, which means we need to slot Watson in there somewhere, and the only spot that isn’t set in stone is the opener, so tough luck Phil Hughes, who one notes was one of the six players who were in the bar with Warner when this little imbroglio took place. We’ll be back to that point later.


OK, sending Warner home might have weakened The Ashes campaign, but it might also deliver a bit of certainty about the batting order by removing one piece from the jigsaw puzzle. There’s still a choice between Cowan, Hughes, Rogers and Watson for the opening slots, and with Clarke and Khawaja in the middle order you can juggle those four at One, Two, Three and Five/Six.

That would mean the batting order’s sorted, so all they need to do is perform. We’ve got Smith, Doolan and the highly rated Jordan Silk on the Australia A tour, at the moment, so if you need to draft another bat in take a choice between the first two (Smith’s on a ton not out against Ireland as I type), and have Silk join the touring party as a specialist substitute fielder.

In that setting there’d have been a chance for someone to cement a spot while Warner cools his heels at home and has to consider the prospect of being made to force his way back into the side rather than anticipate an automatic recall when he’s done his penance.

I can’t think of a clearer way of sending a message to the rest of the touring party. Don’t stuff up, because if you do...

Winning the two Ashes series would do a fair bit towards tackling Point Two above (Australian cricket team’s job is to ensure that the Australian team sits as close as possible to #1 in each of the three forms of the game) but that won’t become a reality unless we can perform consistently at home and win against India and South Africa on their home turf as well, and if we’re going to do that the team culture in a touring party is going to be a key ingredient in any success.

If you’re an England, South African or Indian supporter, of course, that job description (as close as possible to #1 in each of the three forms of the game) will also apply to your side, and it would also apply to Pakistan if it wasn’t for the security issues that deny them the chance to win at home.

New Zealand, Sri Lanka, the West Indies and Bangla Desh might take umbrage at being relegated to sort of also ran status, but I’d suggest there are financial considerations that’re going to militate against those sides forcing their way to the Top Four in the Test rankings, but World Cups in the ODI and T20 formats provide chances to hit the heights and there’s the potential to exert a bit of influence on the Test rankings as well.

Financial considerations go close to ensuring that India, Australia, England and South Africa are going to fill the top places in the Test rankings because the other countries, who are effectively eking out a hand to mouth existence, can’t afford to employ the support staff that richer sides can enjoy as a matter of course.

Which, of course, brings us back to the Homework Affair, which seems to reflect underlying issues within what you might term the Australian team culture and would appear to be a continuation of issues relating to the interaction of the touring squad and the support staff.

The whole issue of whether all these people are actually necessary is one that we’ll lightly step around for the moment, content to point out that they’re there to do a job, and it’s up to everybody else to ensure that they’re able to do it.

If there’s a dietician or nutritionist in place they’re there for a reason, and if that reason involves players keeping a diary detailing what they eat and drink on a day by day basis and submitting the details at designated intervals then you keep the diary and you hand in the details on time.

And if the Australian coach asks you to jump, you ask How high? You don’t question the need to jump at all. Sure, you might not agree that jumping is necessary, but after you’ve done it you can always ask questions.

I was musing about this point on the walk yesterday morning, particularly with regard to Warner’s occasional rolling over of the arm. I’ve been saying for a while that he possibly needs to bowl more, but a glance at the score cards from the tour of India earlier this year revealed four overs that went for heaps. Not the stuff of a front line bowler, but when it comes to this sort of matter we’re not necessarily talking front line stuff.

Actually, everyone sitting at the top of the batting order should be able to roll their arm over and deliver something reasonable, not necessarily spin, to the point where there’s a need for something different there are a number of options to choose from.

So while this next bit is hypothetical and I certainly hope that it doesn’t resemble reality, you can probably see where I’m coming from when I look for an example of the team coach asking someone to jump.

So let’s say you’re a top order bat and you’re taking it easy rolling your arm over in the nets when the coach sidles over and suggests you might want to put a little more effort into your leggies. What do you do?

Possibly, you respond with something like Sure, coach and set about bowling with a bit more zip and vigour. I have a suspicion there’s not much likelihood of that happening with a number of players across a variety of national sides.

More likely, you ask why.

Now, the reasoning behind the request might be that you’re not really providing much that’s within reach of the bloke who’s at the other end in a system where the batsmen change when the bell sounds. He needs stuff he can hit, and you’re not providing it because, basically, you’d prefer not to be bowling at all.

The coach, more than likely, knows your heart’s not in it and when you ask for a reason he probably can’t say you’re bowling tripe and you’d object if anyone else served it up to you, so lift your act. That sort of suggestion might result in your heading off in a snit, delivering more of the same (or worse) and quite possibly pouring scorn on the suggestion and the coach’s presumption in making it to anyone in the dressing room that’ll listen.

On the other hand, a smart coach will have at least three reasons why your leg spin needs some work, including (Australian example) the state of Pup’s back (which is going to limit how much left arm tweakery he can bowl), concerns with over rates and getting through ninety in a day, the need for the blokes at the other end of the nets to get practice at balls turning this way or that way and I could probably come up with a couple of others without too much effort.

The coach would be looking for responses similar to how do you reckon they’re landing? and how’s the wrong ‘un looking? followed by requests to book some quality time with the wrist spin mentor when a couple of technical issues have been identified.

Unfortunately, in the current situation one can’t help thinking the responses to suggestions that involve things certain players would prefer not to have to do (and I’m not suggesting anyone has an aversion to bowling in the nets, just picking something that might need work and could add another little option to the tactical armoury) tend to be along the lines of Oh yeah? Well I’ll bear it in mind.

Filling in the details of your dietary intake might be a pain, and you might think that dietician isn’t really necessary, but if you’re playing in Chennai and dehydration’s likely to be an issue that paperwork might just turn out to be very important.

And I’ve seen references to other issues that might look like minor infringements but can have a significant effect on the team culture. Turning up late for the bus to the ground, for example.

You probably don’t need to be Einstein to work out that if play starts at eleven and the team warmup procedure takes an hour and a half you probably want to be at the ground around nine. If the trip between the hotel and the ground tends to take between half an hour and forty-five minutes then the bus needs to leave at eight-fifteen, so it’s in the lobby by eight-ten for a departure five minutes later.

Critics of the treatment the Homework Four received may or may not agree, but in most cases where there are team rules and protocols in place they’re there for a reason, and they’re meant to ensure that things run smoothly and the side takes the paddock ready to fire.

Warner and the other Australian players in that particular bar on that particular night, mightn’t have broken any team protocols when they went out for a gargle with some of the opposition but they weren’t showing a great deal of strategic nous when it comes to the invariable needle that’ll come through an Ashes series.

And I’m talking what happens on the field here, not what the poison pens of the Pommy press are going to hurl at you if you give them the slightest excuse. We should be operating under the assumption that every situation involving sportsmen, the general public, late nights and alcohol has the potential to become very ugly very quickly.

Take this current situation. Joe Root appears to have gone out wearing a wig and has set out to be funny by using the hirsute accessory to imitate Hashim Amla’s beard. This is what apparently upset Warner, and the scuffle came out of that. Who knows? That may be one of Root’s standard party tricks.

In this sort of situation, rather than going to clock him one, you might suggest that the bloke doing the impersonation was a racist expletive deleted, announce that you don’t associate with that sort of animal and depart the scene in high or medium dudgeon. Do that, and have one of your mates leak it to the press and you’ve got the other bloke attracting the newspaper headlines, and the Poison Pens of the Pommy Press may be giving him a major serve. That’d be one to the good guys, wouldn’t it?

We know that the actual Ashes series in going to be accompanied by a large quantity of what you might charitably call chirp from English players, supporters and spectators and members of the Australian side are quite likely going to cop it whenever they’re in contact with the public on or off the field.

It’ll be definitely be needle, and will more than likely be served up in anticipation of a response, so you need to set a few team protocols in place to help avoid difficult situations, and you need to make it quite clear that these protocols must be followed.

In the past there’d been a rule that had wives, partners, girlfriends and family excluded from the tour party until the Fourth or Fifth Test of a five Test series away from home, with the sweetener of something like a week’s holiday for everyone along with a fairly low key game or two in Bermuda on the way home from the West Indies. This was, from what I can gather, common in the Border era, and didn’t go down all that well with some of the wives and girlfriends.

In that sort of situation you could set up a small social committee, charge them with preparing a social itinerary for each stop on the tour and give everyone the option of going along with the social itinerary which will probably offer an interesting variety of experiences, staying at the team hotel or, possibly, exploring this relatively harmless alternative if you’re disinclined to go out with the rest of the side and have picked up a dose of cabin fever.

Relatively harmless alternatives might include going out to eat with someone from the opposition, but that sort of thing should have a strict curfew, if it’s allowed at all. Indeed, in a couple of series under Border and Waugh any form of fraternisation with the Old Enemy was strictly verboten.

Didn’t matter if your best mate from the stint you spent playing county cricket was the best man at your wedding, is your brother-in-law and the godfather of your first born son, if he’s a member of the Pommy team you were to walk past him as if he wasn’t there.

There are plenty of examples of ways to unsettle the opposition by seemingly innocuous actions.

One could point to the old Fred Trueman practice of lobbing in the other side’s dressing room before the start of a day’s play and enumerating the number of scalps he’ll be collecting with the ball. You might think of this as harmless banter, but it’s not the sort of thing the opening batsman wants to hear when he’s putting the pads on and it’s coming from the bloke you’re going to be facing in the very near future.

You’re possibly better off thinking about your own innings rather than trying to tune out the bowler’s suggestions regarding his forthcoming bowling analysis.

Viv Richards, on the other hand, was apparently inclined to wander to the crease, nonchalantly gnawing on the chewing gum and acting as if he expected a cheery greeting from anyone on the fielding side he happened to pass on the way in.

Seriously, regardless of the rules and procedures that have been set in place and quite apart from any misbehaviour along the way, anything that gives the other side the slightest hint of an edge is to be avoided.

Warner, in company of at least one bloke with a history of drink-related disciplinary issues is out at half-past two in the morning. Someone does something he doesn’t like so he clocks him one.

This, in an era when practically everyone in the bar at the time probably has a mobile phone that’ll provide an opportunity to record an unsavoury incident and have it splashed across YouTube, FaceBook and Twitter within minutes.

Pressure, in the words of my old Sports Psychology bible, is something you put on yourself. Some people, of course, are alleged to be above such considerations (which probably means, in a pressure situation, they’ve either developed mechanisms to ignore it or fail to recognize that it’s there).

In a few weeks the Barmy Army will be baying, there’ll be eleven blokes on the field who’re willing to give you plenty of chirp, and Messrs Warner and Hughes, both of whom will have big question marks about their ability to handle the swinging ball, are going out for a big night with some of the blokes who’ll be dishing it out to them from close range in a  situation where there’ll be plenty of pressure to be found and put on yourself.

Worse, in a situation where you could fix someone with a steely glare, suggest that he’s an expletive deleted racist and possibly have him react in a manner that’ll attract the media attention (imagine the newspaper headlines, should such a matter manage to leak itself) you react in a way that guarantees the headlines are going to be working against you instead of for you.

Not very clever, Mr Warner.

The Ashes Squad 2013

You may think it's rather like a dog that persists in gnawing at a bone long after whatever meat was there in the first place but I continue to see reminders of that fateful morning in 2005 when Glenn McGrath turned his ankle on a stray cricket ball, Ricky Ponting won the toss and sent them in and Brett Lee proceeded to bowl in a most profligate manner.

It was a decision that might seem to belong to the dim and distant past, but we're still seeing the ripples of its effect, most recently in the question of why we've recalled a thirty-five year old veteran of a single Test to the Australian squad for the Ashes tour.

Regardless of the implications (cited here) of being issued with a baggy green that may or may not have been too small and seems to have resulted in a migraine, Chris Rogers was always going to have to make way for Matthew Hayden's return to the side. That was in the summer of 2007-2008, when the Australian side was rebuilding after the retirements of Langer and Martyn (and Warne and McGrath) with Gilchrist and Hayden on the verge of leaving and Ponting and Hussey starting to approach their use by dates, so you can see why Hayden had to come back in the short term.

Had we held the Ashes in 2005, one suspects the retirement/rebuilding process would have been managed differently.

Still, having chosen to bring on younger players in the interim (Phil Jaques, Simon Katich, Phil Hughes, Shane Watson, David Warner and Ed Cowan) there's the possibility of a pleasingly ironic turn of The Ashes tail if we regain the urn thanks to the efforts of an opening batsman who's spent the past five Australian winters amassing a mountain of runs and gaining valuable experience in English conditions, playing County cricket because he wasn't in the Australian side.

That said, with the predictable reinstatement of Brad Haddin to the premier glove man position yesterday's announcement of The Ashes squad provided few surprises, though it does raise some interesting possibilities and a few intriguing conundrums.

For a start it does look like a bowling attack that'll be able to take twenty wickets in English conditions. Three out of Siddle, Pattinson, Starc, Harris and Bird with either Watson or Faulkner as a fourth seamer and Lyon, who has finally managed a bag of wickets in a Test (and, one notes, is moving to New South Wales, put a big tick in the developing the spinner box) looks like a pretty sharp attack.

It's also interesting to note four of those five quicks in the Australia A squad, along with Lyon and young Ashton Agar as well as Haddin and Khawaja. There'll be plenty of chances to assess form and performance prior to the start of the First Test at Trent Bridge on 10 July. There are tour matches against Somerset and Worcestershire before that,  and Australia A play Scotland, Ireland and Gloucestershire while they get the Champions' Trophy sorted out.

On that basis, crystal ball gazing three months out might seem pretty pointless. You'd expect the twelve for Trent Bridge to include four of the five quicks plus Lyon, with Clarke and Haddin the only obvious certainties. Throw in Rogers and Watson as highly likely, and you've got three batting spots up for grabs with Warner, Cowan, Hughes and Khawaja as the candidates.

Pretty straightforward for mine. Rogers is an opening bat, so put him in first, with Cowan, Hughes at Three, Clarke at Four, Watson at Five and Warner at Six. Haddin is the obvious Seven, Starc, Siddle, Pattinson and Lyon rounding out the eleven with Harris or Bird carrying the drinks.

But we'll see. There are several bridges with quite a bit of water to flow under them between now and then.

Ashes squad:
Michael Clarke (capt), Brad Haddin (vice-capt, wk), David Warner, Ed Cowan, Phillip Hughes, Shane Watson, Usman Khawaja, Chris Rogers, Matthew Wade (wk), James Faulkner, Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle, James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon, Jackson Bird.

Australia A squad:
Brad Haddin (capt), Steven Smith (vice-capt), Ashton Agar, Jackson Bird, Alex Doolan, Ryan Harris, Moises Henriques, Usman Khawaja, Nathan Lyon, Nic Maddinson, James Pattinson, Chadd Sayers, Peter Siddle, Jordan Silk.

Chennai: After Day Four...

Given a lack of pay television in these parts and the refusal of the BCCI to offer a reasonably priced radio option I wasn't going to bother commenting on the current Test series in India but after what has every appearance of a tightly fought four days I can't help myself.

It would be easy to look at things and denounce the batting as not good enough and label the bowling as completely the wrong option, but from where I'm sitting it looks like we've been suckered into this foolhardy notion of we'll play our best side.

That's fair enough, but too often our best side doesn't coincide with the conditions or current forrm, and too often it's built around aspirations rather than reality.

Looking at the two Australian innings in this Test, you'd probably assume we don't play spin very well, and you'd probably be right. Michael Clarke does, but we knew that, and it really looks like we went in on a wing and a prayer with the rest of the top six. After Chennai you'd have to say the only blokes who should be guaranteed a spot in the top six are Clarke and Henriques, who may be better suited ahead of Wade than after him since he might manage to stick around longer.

We don't have a lot of other options on hand over there, so the others are possibly safe once one of them has made way for Khawaja. Until, that is, you decide to turn your attention to the bowling.

Three quicks, a medium paced all-rounder and an offie might be our best bowling attack in these parts, and these three quicks plus Watson and Lyon might be our best bowling attack period, but Watto's not bowling, and you need to consider the conditions.

Given the weather, the track and the general welfare of the players it's obvious we've got at least one quick too many, which brings us back to the on-going Watto conundrum as far as the batting order is concerned.

Bowling Watto and Henriques with a strike bowler (Pattinson) and someone to do the donkey work (take a bow there Mr Siddle) would possibly work just as well as this lineup, but Watto doesn't bowl at the moment, and if he did we'd probably be looking at Henriques and saying, well, that's Watto's job, so we're right in that department.

As far as I can see you need someone to take the new ball and once the shine is off it, it's down to spin, reverse swing and, possibly, someone bowling short sharp bursts. If you go the short sharp bursts bit, it's Pattinson or Starc but not both of 'em.

But, I hear you suggest in your search for wisdom, we've got to play both Pattinson and Starc because they're part of our best bowling attack and, anyway, we don't have any decent spinners.

I'd counter that point with the argument that we don't get 'em because we don't bowl 'em when the conditions are likely to suit, so they don't come on.

I think it's obvious that Maxwell needs to be given a run to see how he goes, and you could probably make an equally strong case for Doherty. Warner needs to bowl more, around the same workload as Clarke, and Clarke needs to bowl a bit more anyway.

Writing this we're nine down and around forty in front going into Day Five, so we know the likely result. Hell, we might even look at it and say that without Dhoni's quite remarkable achievement we haven't done that badly, but we really need to do a bit of thinking before Hyderabad, assuming we actually get there after the recent bomb blasts…

Throwing Maxwell in would strengthen the batting, and given the fact that he tends to be a little prickly, he might contribute some useful niggle. Put him in ahead of Starc and you've got someone to bat Seven or Eight with hitman Pattinson at Nine, Siddle at Ten and Lyon at Eleven.

Up at the top of the order we've got the ongoing Watto conundrum, but I would definitely have Khawaja in for Hughes and leave everything else as is for the moment, with the note that non-bowling Watto needs to contribute runs, and that if he's going to open it doesn't have to be at Cowan's expense. You could always go with Warner at Three and drop Khawaja down a slot, or decide to get Warner to give it a bit of hammer at Four or Five.

Anyway, assuming fitness and the absence of gastric issues, Hughesy's eleven for Hyderabad, track unseen and conditions unknown:

Warner, Cowan, Khawaja, Watson, Clarke, Henriques, Maxwell, Wade, Pattinson/Starc, Siddle, Lyon.

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...