Australia's Post Ashes Blueprint

[howardj]

I agree with Malcolm Conn, in the Australian newspaper, that the brief for Australia’s selectors should immediately be towards forming a team to contest the next Ashes campaign in 2006/07. Regarding the personnel, here's my blueprint/structure that Australia should implement looking towards that series, and casting ahead for the next four years. It's a little lengthy , but worth the read if you like Aussie cricket.

The Openers:

Personally, I would make a broad judgment about Matthew Hayden, and terminate his career. Granted, he jagged a century in his last innings, but the selectors should look at the trend with his batting. The trend, over the last 18 months, over the last 30 innings, has been that his batting and his mental state, have been in serious decline. All quality players, if you give them enough chances, will eventually score a century - it’s the trend that counts. Moreover, a selector’s brief includes reading the ‘tea-leaves’, not just looking a batsman’s most recent innings.

The problem with retaining Hayden for the next Test series is that he will likely ‘fill his boots’ against a woeful West Indies attack, and then do likewise against a military medium South African attack. Given this, he would then find himself in the team for the next Ashes series. The problem with that is that I don’t think he, any longer, has the ability or the application to make consistent runs against high quality bowling units.

I'd be bold and draft Phil Jacques as Hayden's replacement. Mike Hussey, whatever people say about his ODI form, has never been a great First Class (FC) player. For example, over the last five Pura Cup seasons he has averaged: 30; 35; 34; 41 and 55. I just think, if you are 31 years of age, shouldn't you have shown a little more than that? There's no way those statistics, for a 31 year old, warrant a Baggygreen.

By contrast, Phil Jacques, aged just 26, has had two summers of Pura Cup cricket in Australia for a combined average of 50. Last summer, in only his second season, he scored over 1100 runs at an average of 66. He is already rated highly by the selectors, after being picked on Australia A's tour of Pakistan. In his only match in that more elite company, he carried his bat and scored 92. Australia should be bold and pick him over Hussey, who is on the wrong side of 30 and who has struggled in the Pura Cup over the last five years.

The other incumbent - Justin Langer - is still hungry, and has shown zero signs of decline. Personally, I see him as one of the cornerstones for Australia over the next four years. He has already stated that the 2009 Ashes tour is not out of the question, and his experience, while the winds of change blow through the rest of the team, would be invaluable - particularly for Phil Jacques.


The Middle Order:

I’d be re-structuring the batting and picking Shane Watson. Firstly, if they stopped concentrating on his bowling, the selectors would realise that he has a better FC batting average than the reserve Ashes batsman, Brad Hodge. Secondly, he is six and a half years younger than Hodge. Finally, he brings more to the team than Hodge, as he averages 30 with the ball in FC cricket. The selectors are making a grave mistake viewing Watson through the prism of a bowler who bats. Rather, he is a batsman - averaging almost 50 in FC cricket - whose bowling is a bonus. Watson adds another dimension to the side, by allowing it to play two spinners, and should come in for either Katich or Martyn.

On that question - Katich or Martyn? - I would drop Katich. I think he’s a top-order batsman, who looks so out of place at five or six. He’s had a good run at Test cricket (21 matches) and is averaging less than 40. Martyn, after his Ashes tour, can consider himself somewhat lucky, but I don’t think he has really shown any real signs of decline. For instance, in recent series, he has averaged 55; 50; 55; 41; 103; 78. Yes he had a horror Ashes, but there is no trend that justifies the ending of his career. I think he can play for another two years, by which time a young tyro (Phillipson or even Shaun Marsh) can take his place.

The other two incumbents - Ponting and Clarke - will be retained, and together form the nucleus of the middle order over at least the next four years.


Wicket-Keeper:

Adam Gilchrist had a horror Ashes, but there is no real decline in his play. For instance, in the series’ since the beginning of the last Australian summer, he averaged 88; 76 and 171. He had a very poor Ashes tour, but has had similar horror series in the past (India 2004 for instance) and bounced back. I’d back him to do likewise here. I do think, though, that his workload could be better managed over the next two years. Long term, probably after the next West Indies tour in 2007, Gilchrist’s retirement will clear the way for Brad Haddin/Chris Hartley.


Bowlers:

Here, Australia has to think clearly and decide who their best bowlers (be it spinners or quicks) are. In my view, our strength over the next four years, will lie with our spinners, rather than our quicks. I can see McGill playing another four years - he has said so himself that he’ll ‘play long’. Therefore, over the next four years, the balance of the attack should be two spinners; two quicks; and an all-rounder who can bowl first change (Watson).

McGill and Warne (or even if Warne retires, McGill and Cullen/White) is a potent partnership on the flat tracks around the world for the next four years - there’s not too many green tops (even in England) nowadays. Picking two spinners (except on the all too rare green top) is much preferable to finding a 3rd paceman, as Australia’s fast bowling cupboard is threadbare at present.

That means that Australia only have to find two quicks - this is the hard part. One of those spots comes down to either Tait or Lee. Given their styles, I really do not think you can have both of them in the same team - we’ll leak too many runs. Personally, I think Tait showed something in the Ashes. He averaged the same as Lee with the ball, and reversed and moved it far more than Lee, despite being way less experienced.

Lee, for all his heart and indefatigability, still averaged above 40. Sometimes I want to put my head through the television set and tell him to bowl at the top of off-stump. That was his most dangerous length – he knocked over Vaughan and Flintoff a couple of times, and beat the bat on numerous occasions. The bouncers should be surprise balls, not stock deliveries. I thought he would have learnt that lesson after spending 18 months out of the team. Anyway, it falls to Tait and Lee to joust for one of the two fast bowling spots - the strike bowler - for the next few years.

The other fast bowling spot will obviously be filled by the metronomic Glenn McGrath. However, injury and retirement are sure to interrupt at some stage. Whilst ever McGrath is playing (probably two years at most) my fallback in case of injury would be bowlers who have control - Jason Gillespie/Stuart Clark.

Given the lack of depth, Australia can simply not afford to mark Gillespie’s file. I just refuse to believe - at 30 - that he has lost his ‘nip’. I just hope that he can get some good specialist coaching (which he probably wasn’t getting from Buchanan in England) when he returns home. I still think he has 10-15 quality Tests left in him.

When McGrath retires, probably in 12-24 months, I hope that a left-armer, at this stage Mitchell Johnson (described by Dennis Lillee as a “once in a life time bowler”) can replace him on a permanent basis. You will never replace, adequately, someone like McGrath, however at least a left-armer will add variety to the attack and provide else for the opposing batsmen to contend with, more so than a slightly above average right armer. Because, when you look at Australia’s quick bowling stocks at present, that’s all there is: slightly above average bowlers.

Coaches:

As in football, every great coach has his era and is suited to a particular time. The times have suited Buchanan over the last six years. He has had a team of experienced, resourceful, and largely self sufficient players. This has allowed him to concentrate on the mental aspects of cricket and keeping the players mentally fresh. He has really been a mind and science coach and this has, arguably, been to the detriment of our fielding skills and the technical aspects of cricket.

However, I think his time has passed. The Australian team, over the years ahead, is likely to be less naturally gifted, less self-sufficient than its predecessor. The coach will have to have a very ‘hands on’ roll, in polishing the players’ techniques. To this end, the man is Steve Rixon.

Finally, Australia should borrow from England and employ a bowling coach – Bruce Reid is the obvious choice. Pay the incumbent handsomely, make it financially worth their while – the benefits are immense.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Regarding the bowling attack first, I think you have to consider what a second spinner will actually bring to the Australian team. Macgill is a good bowler, but there is very little that Warne can't do with regard to spin bowling in the team. He's an attacking and a defensive spinner, he can rip through a team or tie up an end... he's the greatest spinner Australia has ever had. I think, on Australian pitches, the selectors have to consider an attack they think is most likely to win them games and run with it for a season. Picking McGrath, Lee and Tait, in the absence of other options, lets the selectors have a look at how they will perform as a unit, if Lee can translate his improved bowling performances in England into a better success rate, and how well Tait goes. There is a strong argument for including Watson with this team, but he has to show some improvement with the ball. Watson is a fine batsman, but if he did not bowl he would not make the current Australian team outright. He might deserve a spot, but he wouldn't get it because there's a few other people in line. If Watson does come in, he must hold his own with the bat and also provide some value with the ball, even if that's just bowling accurately and tying up an end for a while. Tait and Lee are both capable of being devastating, but lack the capacity to reduce the run flow. If you supported them with McGrath, Warne and an all-rounder who could bowl seamers and keep it tight when needed, that wouldn't be such a problem. Tait is the best reverse swing bowler in Australia, Lee is fast and did more than enough to warrant at least being in the team next summer in England. Australia should try that team for a summer, rather than throwing McGrath/Lee/Tait/Warne on the scrapheap after one test as a unit.

Now, batting. I am loathe to drop Katich. I think he's a very good player and has the ability to be a real dour, tough middle order player in the mould of a Waugh or Border for Australia, which is something we need. However, he struggled in England more than I expected he would, and his problems weren't just freak dismissals, they were inability against reverse swing and a tendancy to play rash shots. Katich isn't a fluent, destructive batsman who can get away with playing the odd rash shot, his role in the team is different and if he's doing that he shouldn't be in the team. Australia's bowling troubles warrant looking to Watson if he has a good tour with the A team, and putting Katich on the sidelines once more, as much as I like him as a player.

I would rather see Hussey in the team than Jaques. Australia don't simply need youth, they need someone who's going to come in and score runs. Hussey might be 30, but he's got a few years left in him yet, as Langer and Hayden were around that age when they began opening together. Hussey's a long standing success in England, a moderate success in Australia, but most importantly he's got an opportunity at international level and he did well. You can have a first class average of 70, but that's not worth as much as success at international level, and Hussey from the very moment he joined the ODI team has looked absolutely at home. He's played in difficult conditions in England and excelled, and he looked the part last summer in Australia and New Zealand as well. He should be the guy who comes in for Hayden. Jaques will get his shot soon enough, and could use another season to mature anyway.

The rest of the middle order sorts itself out. Ponting/Martyn is still the strongest 3/4 in world cricket today, regardless of Martyn having a poor Ashes series. As you mentioned, there is no reason to believe his slump is a major problem, he simply had a bad series after starting well and getting a few bad calls and losing form and confidence. He'll bounce back, and even if he doesn't he certainly deserves the chance. Clarke was very impressive on the tour of England, and as the future of the Australian batting lineup he deserves to be retained, obviously.

My team, if the first test against the West Indies was tomorrow:

Hayden/Hussey
Langer
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Watson
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
McGrath
Tait

If Hayden's poor run of form continues, replace him with Hussey immediately - some time during the summer. Don't give him another series of doing nothing, especially if Australia are struggling. Tait and Lee deserve to be persisted with. Watson needs to improve the ball so he can at least block up an end like Razzaq and continue his evolution with the bat, and then he will justify his place.

[honestbharani]

I think the side that Faaip has picked is almost the same as Howard's, excepting the spin thing. So, if this were to be the first 12 for Australia, I think they will still be very strong at the test level. England will have their job cut out to beat Australia in the rankings.

[social]

Aus has 4 world-class bowlers - McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and MacGill.

Gillespie was the world's no. 1 paceman 12 months ago, has over 250 test wickets, and needs rehab on his action not the retirement home.

Lee and Tait need to learn the value of consistency but can only do so by bowling at the highest level. As such, it is difficult to see how they can play together.

As for the batsmen: -

1. Hayden played the best innings of the Ashes series and eight of the worst. I find it hard to believe that the selectors will drop him immediately following that knock but neither will I be convinced that "he's back" until he plays with the same discipline repeatedly.

2. Im not convinced about Hussey as a long-term replacement at the top of the order. I suspect that he has a weakness outside the off-stump with the newer ball and would prefer he played lower down. However, he is a brilliant fieldsman, apparently has a very good cricket brain, and is a useful bowler.

3. I have not seen enough of Jacques to make a comment but should he continue to be successful in Pakistan, there must be an argument to blood him immediately rather than after he's lost form.

4. Langer and Ponting pick themselves but Ricky need to have some of the pressure lifted off his shoulders.

5. Martyn was woeful in England and his last 2 knocks under pressure were 2 of the worst Ive seen him play for years. He also varies between brilliant and ordinary in the field. However, he was amongst the best batsmen in world cricket during the preceding 12-18 months.

6. Selectors have too much invested in Clarke to replace him despite lingering questions over his shot selection and fitness.

7. Katich needs a hundred and soon. A half-century every 3 innings is not good enough unless he starts coverting a few into centuries. Im also not convinced about him at no. 6 - he doesnt seem to have a top-gear that he can shift into when quicker runs are required.

8. Gilchrist is a genius and will come good again soon.

9. Watson, as Ive said 248,789,423 times is essential to Aus. He is a top-class batsman and fielder, and is improving as a bowler following a long stint on the sidelines with injury.

What does all that mean?

If I was picking a test team today, it would be:

1. Hayden
2. Langer
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. Watson
6. Clarke
7. Gilchrist
8. Warne (c)
9. Tait/Lee
10. McGrath
11. MacGill

However, should Hayden and Martyn fail in the super-test, I would replace them immediately with Jacques and Hussey respectively.

Finally, in a perfect world, I would also change our ODI side by not picking Lee or Hayden.

Both need to focus on the longer form of the game exclusively.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by social

Finally, in a perfect world, I would also change our ODI side by not picking Lee or Hayden.

Both need to focus on the longer form of the game exclusively.

Lee?! Lee is one of the best ODI bowlers in the world, has the best strike rate of any bowler with over 100 ODI wickets (and the second best with 50+ after Bond), and his economy rate and accuracy are improving all the time. The McGrath/Lee new ball partnership is the key to Australia's chances in the next world cup, and dropping Lee from ODIs would be inexplicable.

Agreed about Hayden though. Open with Clarke or Hussey or Katich and get Hodge in.

[social]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

Lee?! Lee is one of the best ODI bowlers in the world, has the best strike rate of any bowler with over 100 ODI wickets (and the second best with 50+ after Bond), and his economy rate and accuracy are improving all the time. The McGrath/Lee new ball partnership is the key to Australia's chances in the next world cup, and dropping Lee from ODIs would be inexplicable.

Agreed about Hayden though. Open with Clarke or Hussey or Katich and get Hodge in.

It's about focusing on test cricket. He needs overs, and lots of them, in a variety of conditions if he is to improve. Bowling with a new white ball has got him this far, he now needs to learn how to bowl with an old red one.

Btw, I dont expect it to happen.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by social

It's about focusing on test cricket. He needs overs, and lots of them, in a variety of conditions if he is to improve. Bowling with a new white ball has got him this far, he now needs to learn how to bowl with an old red one.

Btw, I dont expect it to happen.

But it would be insane to do! ODI cricket isn't as important as tests, but you don't drop your second best bowler and arguably your biggest attacking weapon with the ball just because you want them to focus on tests. It's not like Lee's 34 and might not make it if he has to keep bowling in ODIs. Australia want to win the next World Cup, obviously, and Lee is a key part of them doing that.

Anyway, an ODI team for the VB series.

Clarke
Gilchrist
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
Hussey
Watson
Hogg
Lee
Gillespie/Tait
McGrath
Sub - Hodge

This seems like a solid team to me. Gillespie has a bit of a question mark, but it's hard to know who else to pick there. Tait is a big wicket taker in OD games, while Gillespie can keep it tight and might be a better choice if its wasn't for the fact that he doesn't actually keep it that tight of late. Hodge can be subbed in for a bowler in the case of batting collapse when batting first, or a bowler who has completed their 10 overs when batting second. His fielding and batting will add to the team.

[social]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

But it would be insane to do! ODI cricket isn't as important as tests, but you don't drop your second best bowler and arguably your biggest attacking weapon with the ball just because you want them to focus on tests. It's not like Lee's 34 and might not make it if he has to keep bowling in ODIs. Australia want to win the next World Cup, obviously, and Lee is a key part of them doing that.

Anyway, an ODI team for the VB series.

Clarke
Gilchrist
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
Hussey
Watson
Hogg
Lee
Gillespie/Tait
McGrath
Sub - Hodge

This seems like a solid team to me. Gillespie has a bit of a question mark, but it's hard to know who else to pick there. Tait is a big wicket taker in OD games, while Gillespie can keep it tight and might be a better choice if its wasn't for the fact that he doesn't actually keep it that tight of late. Hodge can be subbed in for a bowler in the case of batting collapse when batting first, or a bowler who has completed their 10 overs when batting second. His fielding and batting will add to the team.

Im not alking about omitting him until and including the WC, just during a meaningless VB series so that he gets sorely needed first class action.

It's got nothing to do with age, fitness, etc.

We know what he can do for 10 overs with a new ball but he needs to improve in the 10-30 over mark.

Running hard all day just doesnt cut it.

Variation and sustained accuracy over long periods is the key and he's not going to learn that in the pyjama game.

Anyway, it's all academic as it wont happen for the reasons you've listed above.

[PY]

I reckon Watson will be the key to the future for Australia because he's your Freddie (though obviously a little way to go), an all-rounder who can get in for his batting but also offers Ponting another option with the ball as a strike bowler or stock bowler. I've not seen enough of Watson to decide which he will be but if I was him, I'd start learning how to use the old ball in a way similar to Simon Jones and he could solve a few problems with the inconsistency of Lee and Tait.

I like the look of both your sides at the start of these thread (from a neutral perspective) because they look more balanced with Watson in. What about Katich opening the batting? I've heard someone mention that I'm sure.

[age_master]

Tests:

Openers - Hayden wins a little longer based on his last century, not much though, probably 2 or maybe 3 mroe tests depending on how he looks. Hussey is the man to replace him no doubt in my mind. Langer will be around till after the next ashes series.

No 3 - Punter should bat 3 but not be captain.

4,5 and 6 - Martyn's loss of form mystify's me, it seems like minutes ago he was unstopable. should keep his spot for now. Clarke stays, looked good in England at times in the conditions, i reakon in the world that suit him the least, particularly with Englands 3 90mph+ bowlers. Katich is tough, it wont be too long before hes back into form

7 - Gilchrist, in a run of bad form, hes the sort of player though, who can get into form in a matter of balls though. started looking better towards the end of the test series

Bowlers - Warne, Lee and McGrath will be the main 3 for a while now i reakon. with Tait and Macgill sharing the other spot depending on conditions.

Captain - Warne no doubt that he is the best man for the job. other potential captains in and around the team - Langer, Katich, Haddin... umm i think that needs some work


Coaches - well here is where i would really change it up - Buchannan must be shown the door. Bernard should stay on as manager. Allan Border would be my choice for a senior coach/ batting coach role with DK Lillee being brought in as a pace bowling coach no matter what the cost. Damien Fleming i would have as assistant bowling coach to teach the boys about swing.

in terms of spinners i would try and gte Jenner in more often, other spinners should work under Warne to learn the trade.

Fielding - lots of work needs to be done to get in back up to its former glory. i would only class 4 of the team as good fielders atm - Ponting, Clarke, Symonds and Lee. the rest have alot of work to do.

but who to do the job? pick a good fielder and get him in? Jonty? M Waugh?

i would also have Tubby come in and work with the slips and Healy work with Gilly and Haddin.

Autralia A should also have alot more game time, and should train on with the Senior side alot to gain skills.

[age_master]

ODIs

Gilchrist
Clarke
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
Watson
Hussey
Katich
Lee
Hogg
McGrath

using Lee as a pinch hitter to change it up abit might come off on occasion too.

[Slow Love™]

Originally Posted by howardj

On that question - Katich or Martyn? - I would drop Katich. I think he’s a top-order batsman, who looks so out of place at five or six. He’s had a good run at Test cricket (21 matches) and is averaging less than 40. Martyn, after his Ashes tour, can consider himself somewhat lucky, but I don’t think he has really shown any real signs of decline. For instance, in recent series, he has averaged 55; 50; 55; 41; 103; 78. Yes he had a horror Ashes, but there is no trend that justifies the ending of his career. I think he can play for another two years, by which time a young tyro (Phillipson or even Shaun Marsh) can take his place.

Didn't you have a standing $20 wager with me that Martyn would be sacked for his performance this Ashes???

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Slow Love™

Didn't you have a standing $20 wager with me that Martyn would be sacked for his performance this Ashes???

Yeah, it's still on.

I changed my mind about him being dropped though - I don't think he should be.

More than happy to honour the big bet though

I can buy myself a Brad Hodge voodoo doll with the $20

[Slow Love™]

Originally Posted by howardj

Yeah, it's still on.

I changed my mind about him being dropped though - I don't think he should be.

More than happy to honour the big bet though

I can buy myself a Brad Hodge voodoo doll with the $20

Fair enough.

I think it's more likely that your $20 will be going towards my Foxtel slush fund though.

[Linda]

Originally Posted by howardj

Yeah, it's still on.

I changed my mind about him being dropped though - I don't think he should be.

More than happy to honour the big bet though

I can buy myself a Brad Hodge voodoo doll with the $20

Its great to hear youve come to your senses.