Australia include Usman Khawaja for Boxing Day Test

By Nadene Smith

HOBART, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 18, 2012: After losing skipper Michael Clarke to a hamstring injury during Hobart Test, the Australia selectors have included left-hand top-order batsman Usman Khawaja in the squad for the Boxing Day Test against Sri Lanka.

The selectors have also included Tasmanian bowler Jackson Bird in the squad for injured Ben Hilfenhaus and there are healthy chances that the pacer may make his Test debut at the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

The two players have made it to the 13-player squad but while Jackson Bird almost has the chance to get selected for the Melbourne Test, Usman Khawaja may still have to sit out because Michael Clarke is working extensively to regain his fitness for the second Test.

Michael Clarke told reporters, “It's not too bad. I've got a bit of time leading up to the Boxing Day Test, I'll be having plenty of treatment but I'll be confident I'll be right for Boxing Day. I'm always going to be positive because I know I'm in great hands with Alex [Kountouris], I know how good a physio he is, I know how good my physio is in Sydney over the next few days. They'll communicate and I'm really confident with eight days turnaround, I'll be giving myself every opportunity to be right. Mickey and the selectors will give me as much time as required leading into the game. My preparation will be a bit different in the lead up to this Test match but I've done a fair bit of batting so I'm confident if I can do everything in my power, I'll be right for Boxing Day. It's a strain, to what level I don't know, the scans were pretty positive and I'm in really good hands."

Talking about inclusion of Usman Khawaja in the squad, selector John Inverarity said, “Usman turns 26 today, just one week younger than Jackson Bird, and he has been in good form this season. He has played especially well on occasions when conditions for batting have been very difficult. If Michael is not able to take his place in the side then Shane Watson will captain the team. Shane acquitted himself well when he deputised for Michael in the ODI series in the Caribbean earlier this year in March."

The 13-man Australian squad for Melbourne Test includes David Warner, Ed Cowan, Phillip Hughes, Shane Watson, Michael Clarke (captain), Michael Hussey, Usman Khawaja, Matthew Wade (wk), Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, Jackson Bird, and Nathan Lyon.

Read More

Australia drop pacer Mitchell Johnson for Hobart Test

By Jamie Pearce

HOBART, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 13, 2012: The National Selection Panel (at the Cricket Australia (CA) decided on Thursday to rest fast bowler Mitchell Johnson for the first Test match against Sri Lanka starting from Friday at the Bellerive Oval in Hobart.

Although, the Australian selectors picked up three seamers for the Hobart Test where experts are anticipating a lively wicket, Mitchell Johnson failed to find his name in the final list of players for the first Test.

Australian team consists of Michael Clarke (captain), David Warner, Ed Cowan, Phil Hughes, Shane Watson, Mike Hussey, Matthew Wade, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, Ben Hilfenhaus, and Nathan Lyon.

Aussie skipper Michael Clarke announced the team here according to which Ben Hilfenhaus, Peter Siddle, and Mitchell Starc will constitute a strong Australian fast bowling attack while offspinner Nathan Lyon will support them with the change of pace as per the requirements.

Mitchell Johnson, who has also won ICC Cricketer of the Year Award in 2009, joined the national side after a long time in the Perth Test against South Africa which the home team lost by 309 runs but the left-armer is still part of the plans as he was retained as 12^th man for the Hobart Test.

Talking at a news conference here, Michael Clarke said of Johnson’s exclusion, "Obviously a tough selection getting 12 down to 11, especially with the way that Mitchell bowled in Perth, but this is the team we've selected for this test match. At the end of the day you've got to do what's best for the Australian team, you have to pick the best 11 players to help you win the test match. It's a nice problem to have when you've got 12 players that really want to play and have performed well, but unfortunately someone has to miss. Mitchell will be fine, he'll have to work hard and wait for another opportunity and try to grab it with both hands."

Both Ben Hilfenhaus and Peter Siddle were not part of the Australian playing eleven in the Perth Test while Mitchell Starc made his Test debut against the world’s number one Test side where he captured six wickets for 154 runs.

Clarke spoke high of the 22-year-old left-arm pacer. He said, “For me, I'm not looking at the Ashes at all. The reason that Starc is there is because he's been next in line in the queue for a while. He's performed really well in the shorter form of the game for Australia. He got one test in Perth and got six-for and 70-odd with the bat so that's not a bad start as well."

While Australia will be without services of their former legendary skipper Ricky Ponting who announced his Test retirement after Perth Test, Sri Lankans are also going through a transition phase as their skipper Mahela Jayawardene has announced to give up captaincy after the current Australia tour.

Sri Lanka have never defeated Australia in a Test match in Australia but the home side did lose to New Zealand when the last time they played in Hobart.

The three-match Test series will also have matches in Melbourne from December 26 and in Sydney from January 3, 2013.

Read More

Why Phillip Hughes is a bad choice

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 6, 2012: When Phillip Hughes first burst onto the first class scene, he was unbelievably good.

He had an unorthodox technique, with his feet all over the place like he was going to trip over himself, but that, if anything, was why he was so good.

Bowlers were confused as to what to do and tried to get him out but instead were hoiked over the fielder's heads, or over the boundary. Hughes would trick them and had so much freedom.

But English bowler Steve Harmison had an idea how to get through Philip Hughes by using his technique. He started off with a barrage of yorkers and yorker-like deliveries to mess with his feet and then he'd mix it up with some outswingers and inswingers, all of which require expert footwork.

Since Hughes has terrible footwork, he'd get out, either caught behind, caught at slip, clean bowled, or LBW. And it was a virtual guarantee. Hughes might get lucky and get a couple of runs out, or the balls might not land in quite the right way, but eventually they would get him.

It required a swing bowler like Harmison for it to work the best; but fast bowlers could do it too - even medium pacers. The bowler had to be a pretty good bowler to do it effectively - most first class bowlers, even if they knew how to do it, couldn't execute it. Really only top class international bowlers could do it.

The result of this, of course, is that Hughes is going to have pretty good first class results, as most first class bowlers aren't good enough to execute the Steve Harmison mode of dismissal. But whenever he came up with an international match against decent opposition, regardless of the format (though he has never played ODIs or T20s) he is going to be out cheaply.

Now, Philip Hughes isn't the only batsman ever to have his technique found out. In Australia, Steve Waugh was found out by his temptation to play hook shots and get out a lot - though he also got a lot of 6s. Waugh made a lot of runs by hooking at first class level but international bowlers were a lot smarter and it was a guaranteed out. Waugh responded by changing his technique firstly in a very simple way - he cut out the hook shot. He even cut it out from first class matches, even though most first class bowlers weren't good enough to get him out. But eventually Waugh worked out how to play the hook shot safely, even against quality international bowlers. He changed his technique.

Ricky Ponting was found out several times throughout his career, and each time he changed his technique.

Viv Richards was found out, and changed his technique several times over. Kevin Pietersen. Even Don Bradman had his technique found out - several times - and each time he changed his technique. Each time that bowlers found a way to get him out cheaply, he changed it.

The problem is that Phillip Hughes hasn't changed his technique. He has had 3 years now. He has not changed a thing.

In the past 3 years, he tried to change it but no matter what he did he kept getting found out. He was frustrated and angry and his scores plummeted. Then he decided to go back to what was working, started getting better scores, and was recalled to the international team.

Oh, he succeeded against Zimbabwe A. But Zimbabwe A were not an international side, they don't have world class swing bowlers who know how to copy Steve Harmison's techniques. They probably don't even have access to video footage to show how to get Phillip Hughes out.

Phillip Hughes was recalled to the Australian test team and failed abysmally. In his first time in the test team he averaged over 50. In his second time, he averaged 20. Bowlers kept repeating Steve Harmison's techniques and Phillip Hughes kept falling for it. Again and again he gave his wicket away cheaply.

Since then, Hughes has gone away and played in the exact same way he did before he was originally called up to the Australian test team. His technique hasn't changed. But most Australian state bowlers aren't good enough to copy Harmison's techniques. So he has scored reasonably well.

And now, somewhat blindly, the Australian selectors have recalled him.

Yet in his case numbers are irrelevant.

Hughes could be averaging 100 and it wouldn't matter. He could be in the form of his life and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever.

While his technique is unchanged, he is going to keep getting out cheaply to any quality international bowler who can copy Steve Harmison's technique.

Now, Sri Lanka don't have a lot of good swing bowlers. I have no doubt that Lasith Malinga could copy the technique but he isn't playing in tests. It is quite possible that none of Sri Lanka's bowlers are good enough, or the right kind of bowler, to be able to copy Steve Harmison's technique.

It is quite possible that Phillip Hughes will succeed against Sri Lanka.

Now, I don't know for sure if he will. It is possible that one of Sri Lanka's bowlers is good enough, and does have enough access to video information, and good enough coaches, to be able to get Hughes out cheaply. I don't know for sure.

But even if Hughes succeeds against Sri Lanka, he won't succeed against England, or India, or South Africa, or Pakistan, or New Zealand, or West Indies. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are the only 3 teams that don't obviously have the right kind of bowlers - but even they may be able to get him out cheaply. Perhaps Angelo Mathews or Perera can get one through. Perhaps even a spinner can use a spin variation of Harmison's technique and deal with him quickly.

It is reminiscent of the Zimbabwe-born English player Graeme Hick.

Graeme Hick, like Steve Waugh, was a happy hooker. He was great normally but kept getting out to bouncers. All that a bowler had to do to get him out was to bowl bouncers. With the right field settings, Hick was an easy victim. Hook managed huge amounts of runs at a very high average at first class level, but never played tests, because in tests they were allowed to bowl bouncers, and he was an easy out. Oh, he played a few tests with success early in his career, but once he was found out, he was a goner. But Hick ended up playing a wealth of ODI games, mainly because they changed the bouncer law for ODIs to ban bouncers. He did very well. But then, when they changed the test law to limit bouncers, they considered him again.

The problem with Phillip Hughes is that it is incredibly unlikely, nay impossible, for them to change the laws to ban bowlers doing the kinds of things that he is going to get out cheaply to.

Another problem that Hughes has is that no other batsman plays like him.

Don Bradman managed it in spite of an unorthodox technique, and in spite of no other batsmen being like him - he managed to change his technique.

But is Hughes as smart as Bradman was? Is he good enough to work out his own techniques?

If he is, good for him, and Hughes deserves a spot in the test team.

Until then, though, he needs to stay at first class level only.

This was the dumbest choice of the 4 options. Of the 4, I would have picked Usman Khawaja, though I wouldn't have minded Alex Doolan either. Rob Quiney had already failed so I'd hate to see him given another shot. For me, I wanted either David Hussey (who well and truly deserves it but they say is too old) or George Bailey (who has worked up to it brilliantly). For me, it should have been a choice of Hussey or Bailey. I don't know why the selectors had 4 that were all bad choices, and why they chose the worst of the 4 options.

There are good batsmen in Australia. But Hughes isn't one of them.

The success or failure of Phillip Hughes in the upcoming series will depend on whether Sri Lanka has a bowler who can repeat the Steve Harmison method, and whether they have coaches good enough to show them how to do it. If they do, Hughes will fail. If they don't, then Hughes may actually succeed - but that is if anything even worse, as then we may be stuck with him for a while.

I may be wrong and maybe Hughes has secretly worked out his technical flaws; but I doubt it.

Read More

Cricket Australia fills Ricky Ponting void with Phil Hughes

By Nadene Smith

SYDNEY, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 6, 2012: The National Selection Panel of Cricket Australia on Thursday picked Phil Hughes over Usman Khawaja, Rob Quiney and Alex Doolan to fill up the void created by retirement of legendary Ricky Ponting.

The NSP announced a 12-man squad for the first Vodafone Test against Sri Lanka which is starting at Blundstone Arena in Hobart from Friday.

The Australian squad for the Hobart Test includes Michael Clarke (c), Shane Watson (vc), Ed Cowan, Ben Hilfenhaus, Phillip Hughes, Mike Hussey, Mitchell Johnson, Nathan Lyon, Peter Siddle, Mitchell Starc, Matthew Wade, and David Warner.

National Selector John Inverarity said during his press conference to announce the squad, “Phillip Hughes has been selected to fill the vacancy created by Ricky Ponting’s retirement. Hughes, Usman Khawaja, Rob Quiney and Alex Doolan were the four batsmen to come under consideration to bat high in the order. Phillip is an improved player and his recent and overall career statistics present a compelling case”.

He further stated, “The NSP holds the view that he, having just turned 24, is a very significant part of the future. He has received this call-up, his third, as it was considered to be the right time and circumstances for him to re-establish himself”.

When asked about how Michael Clarke looks at Phil Hughes, John Inverarity said, “Michael Clarke will give careful consideration to his batting order during the next few days. He has a number of options open to him and Hughes at three is one of these”.

Giving NSP opinion on the bowling combination, John Inverarity said, “The four pace bowlers in the squad are Peter Siddle, Ben Hilfenhaus, Mitchell Johnson and Mitchell Starc. John Hastings and Josh Hazlewood, not being able to be declared fit to perform at the time of selection, were not considered. The squad welcomes the return of Ben Hilfenhaus and Peter Siddle. Neither bowler was considered to be 100 per cent fit to perform and was not included in the final squad of 12 for the recent Perth Vodafone Test match against South Africa”.

When asked about the life after Ricky Ponting, John Inverarity was of the view, “The dressing-room will be different without the presence of Ricky Ponting. His absence creates both the opportunity and the necessity for others to grow and fill the gap. We look forward to watching Michael Clarke’s team in the three Test series against Sri Lanka after acquitting themselves well against the formidable South African line-up who deservedly retained the number one ICC Test ranking”.

Read More

Who can fill Ricky Ponting void in Australian cricket team?

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 6, 2012: The Cricket Australia announced Thursday Phillip Hughes as the replacement for Ricky Ponting who announced his Test retirement after the Perth Test.

TheSportsNEXT.com’s cricket analyst Adrian Meredith reviewed the candidates who looked likely to be Ricky Ponting's replacement in the Australian Test team:

George Bailey

Why he should be picked: Since his T20 debut about a year ago - as captain - he has forced his way into the ODI team as well, and has done increasingly well, with a very good average of over 40, putting a high price on his wicket, the kind of temperament needed in test cricket. He also averages over 40 in FC cricket and is in decent form.

Why he shouldn't be picked: His record in limited overs formats is considerably better than in first class formats and he is known as a limited overs specialist. Until a year ago, he wasn't even thought of as ever playing an international. He could easily fall apart, as did fellow limited overs specialist Shaun Marsh - though Faf du Plessis is a limited overs specialist, and Vernon Philander was considered to be too; so you never know.

David Hussey

Why he should be picked: He has ample international experience and, overall, has done incredibly well. He is in supreme form in all 3 formats right now. And he averages well over 50 overall. As the younger brother of Michael Hussey, Australia's best batsman, he can be guaranteed to do very well at test level, especially if the two of them bat together. He should have been picked some 5 or 6 years ago.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He is already 35 (even though he is the younger brother) and would perhaps have 3 or 4 years in the side, at most. He is also known as a limited overs specialist - especially in T20s - in spite of his supreme FC record. If he does play, it'd be a stop gap measure, as then they'd have to find his replacement a few years later.

Phillip Hughes

Why he should be picked: He had such a great FC record, and did well in his first few tests, before failing somewhat dramatically, being dropped, coming back, and failing even worse. But he still has a better record than Ed Cowan. He is in good form in the past year or so.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He still has that poor technique that has been found out. Until he fixes that technique, experienced bowlers at international level are going to keep exploiting it, and, no matter how good his form is, he is never going to score. His form is irrelevant while he has that flawed technique.

Usman Khawaja

Why he should be picked: He had a good start to his FC career and was somewhat prematurely thrust into the Australian team a couple of years ago, where he had a below par return. Since then his FC performances have dropped significantly; but in the past 6 months or so they have picked up again.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: After such a poor start to his test career, it is probably best to wait until he has a lengthier display of good FC returns before bringing him back. He is probably a good option in the long term but my feeling is that we should wait another year more before giving him a spot in test cricket.

Mark Cosgrove

Why he should be picked: He has been a solid batsman for several years now but since moving to Tasmania has really lifted a gear. Ed Cowan has been in the same side but Cosgrove has done better than Cowan, is in better form and has a better overall record, making many people wonder why or how Cowan could possibly have been ahead of Cosgrove.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He is overweight and the physical demands of international cricket, especially test cricket, may be too much. Also, while he does have a better record in every way to Cowan's, it isn't much better and realistically Cowan probably isn't doing well enough to stay in test cricket, so having a similar player come in may be counter productive.

Callum Ferguson

Why he should be picked: He did very well at ODI level before injuries pushed him out of the side. He had a few good FC performances in the past few years too. He seems to be a player who lifts for the big time and if so could do well at the test level.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: His overall FC record is poor and he is more known as a limited overs specialist. On top of that, while he isn't out of form, he isn't exactly in form either.

Adam Voges

Why he should be picked: Something of a long game specialist, for various reasons Voges never played a test, in spite of doing well in the ODI setup, and showing that he is well suited to the longer formats. He is in decent form, has a wealth of experience behind him and is very solid.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He is on the wrong side of 30 years old and, while 33 years old means he still has a few years in him, the David Hussey argument might come in. He also averages barely over 40 in FC cricket, which may make selectors nervous about picking him. He would probably do well but it could be seen as a stop gap measure, as he would then have to be replaced later on.

Alex Doolan

Why he should be picked: He has had some magnificent returns, and in that Australia A game against South Africa, when Rob Quiney "forced" his way into the team, Doolan actually had an unbeaten 160 not out. He is in fantastic form, probably only behind Ricky Ponting in domestic cricket this year. If they are serious about picking players while they are in form, Doolan has to be the choice.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: Doolan might be in form, but his overall record is somewhat less impressive. While he hasn't had a very lengthy career, it doesn't make very good reading. But then again, he played many games as a wicket keeper.

Peter Nevill

Why he should be picked: He has come on in leaps and bounds into the New South Wales squad, overtaking Dan Smith and realistically also Brad Haddin - though Haddin still gets to have the gloves, and is probably 2nd behind Wade on the wicket keeper ranks. His FC average of 43 suggests that he could make the test side purely as a batsman, and he is just going from strength to strength too. While he is a wicket keeper by trade, so is Michael Hussey, and he is becoming used to playing as a batsman. If he does end up replacing Wade, having some test experience behind him would be good too. He could be like AB de Villiers was to Mark Boucher.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: He is still regarded as a wicket keeper and it may be somewhat insulting to Wade to pick a 2nd keeper in the test side.

Joe Burns

Why he should be picked: He is a young player with a great average who is bursting through the ranks.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: Statistics can be misleading and after just one season that great average could easily slump. He has no international experience of any kind and it would be a massive risk to thrust him into the test side.

Steve Smith

Why he should be picked: He is in great form, has had success at international level and also failure and therefore is mentally strong enough to cope. He is starting to learn how to win. He also has a very good cricketing brain and knows how to make the most of any situation.

Why he shouldn’t be picked: His form isn't good enough to force his way in purely as a batsman and his failures in the tests that he did play in will make the selectors nervous. He needs another year or two of excellent performances to force his way in.

For me, the best options are: George Bailey, David Hussey, Adam Voges and Peter Nevill. Given that the selectors don't like Hussey and Voges because of their age; that leaves us with Bailey vs Nevill. I like both options actually. Bailey has shown that he has the temperament required to make it at test level and I think that his chances of success at test level are very high. Nevill is a wicket keeper by trade but he has had to fight so hard that he is developing all of the right characteristics to succeed at the highest level. Remember when AB de Villiers played for South Africa as a batsman in spite of being a specialist keeper? It worked out very well for them, and I see the same thing for Nevill. Then, if Wade is ever injured, Nevill can take over, which would make a nice easy transition.

For me, therefore, and bearing in mind the Australian selectors, I think that it will be Bailey and Nevill. Oh, and Ed Cowan is going to be dumped. Sorry, but while he did score that one century, he has done nothing else all series long and just isn't test quality.

Read More

Clarke, Hastings, Hilfenhaus, Hazlewood to miss Big Bash League opener

By Nadene Smith

SYDNEY, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) December 5, 2012: The most-anticipated Australian domestic Twenty20 cricket tournament is just a couple of days away but some of the biggest stars will not be part of the initial matches of the KFC Big Bash League 2012.

Australian Test skipper Michael Clarke, as well as pacemen Ben Hilfenhaus, John Hastings, and Josh Hazelwood will not be available to their respective BBL franchises for their opening games of the Australian domestic Twenty20 season.

Michael Clarke is once again struggling to get over the back soreness and has been told to stay away from the opening round of the KFC Big Bash League 2012.

While Josh Hazlewood, who is knocking at door of Test cricket, is nursing a foot injury and is out at least for a month, Ben Hilfenhas and John Hastings have also been ordered by the Cricket Australia to miss the opening stages of the Twenty20 tournament.

Cricket Australia Executive General Manger of Team Performces, Pat Howard said in a statement issued Wedenesday, "Our medical staff have advised Michael not to play cricket this weekend”.

The Cricket Australia’s National Selection Panel is due to announce squad on Thursday for the first Test against Sri Lanka and Michael Clarke, who has been facing back problems due to degenerative discs in his lower back, is expected to be part of the squad.

The first Test between Australia and Sri Lanka is starting from December 14.

Cricket Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Justin Paoloni said in a statement issued here today, “John Hastings had scans that have ruled out serious injury. He will be reviewed later this week to determine his return to training and playing. He will miss the first Big Bash League game and possibly be unavailable for selection for the first Test versus Sri Lanka in Hobart, depending on how responds to treatment."

Read More

The Ashes battle to resume in November next year

By Nadene Smith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 22, 2012: The Cricket Australia (CA), on Thursday, made public the schedule for the 2013-14 Ashes series against England.

England will tour Australia in November 2013 where they will play a total of five Test matches as well as five One Day Internationals and three Twenty20 Internationals, the Cricket Australia said in a release.

The Ashes Battle will swing into cricket action on November 21, 2013 when Gabba, Brisbane will host the inaugural Test match which will be followed by the second Test in Adelaide from December 5, third Test in Perth from December 13, fourth Test in Melbourne from December 26, while the fifth and the final Test will be played in Sydney from January 3, 2014.

The Cricket Australia Chief Executive James Sutherland said the schedule for the limited overs series will be released next year.

He said, "We are delighted to be able to confirm the Ashes fixtures so far in advance of the series. It means fans will be able to plan their trips around the country to follow all the action. I am sure there will be a lot of fans from the UK who will want to make the trip over and we look forward to hosting them here."

England will have a detailed tour Down Under in 2013-14 as they will also played four tour matches against quality sides like Western Australia XI, Australia A, New South Wales XI, and a Chairman’s XI.

The complete schedule for The Ashes 2013-14 Tests follows:

1st Test - November 21-25 - Brisbane

2nd Test - December 5-9 - Adelaide

3rd Test - December 13-17 - Perth

4th Test - December 26-30 - Melbourne

5th Test - January 3-7 - Sydney

Read More

Australian cricket selection disasters

By Adrian Meredith 

MELBOURN, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 4, 2012: The fall from dominance since 2007 is claimed to be because of the absence of Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath - plus a range of other long term players with varying degrees of success. But those players could have been covered.

Let's look instead at an alternative explanation - that the selections have stunk.

And let's look at some major examples of this:

Marcus North - Australia were in big trouble and they made a selection call from out of nowhere in playing two all rounders in Marcus North and Andrew McDonald. They both did well and led an Australian revival, series victory and a return to number 1 test team. Yay! But then they had to drop one. Andrew McDonald was doing better and had the better domestic record but they went the wrong way and picked North. Fair enough but then after he kept failing they kept picking him. The guy played 21 test matches, averaging just 35 - a good 15 less than the other batsmen in the Australian team at the time. He won Australia 3 of those 21 matches - and cost them most of the rest.

Brad Haddin - He was never the 2nd best keeper in the country behind Gilchrist - he was the best batsman of the keepers. Once he started playing for Australia, the fielding standard dropped considerably. He kept dropping catches, missing stumpings and letting byes go by and he kept getting selected. He played 43 tests, averaging 35 with the bat - a pretty decent return and had a batting average of 31 and strike rate of 81 in ODIs, which is also decent for a keeper. Not good enough purely as a batsman though and his performance with the gloves were far below that expected of an international wicket keeper.

Tim Paine - Why would you replace one mistake with another? Tim Paine also was an ordinary keeper yet was selected based on his batting ability. He played 4 tests and 28 ODIs as back up to Brad Haddin, averaging 35 in tests but a mere 29 in ODIs - at a strike rate of just 68 - below Haddin in both formats. His keeping was comparable with Haddin - both are way below international standard though - and neither are good enough batsmen to play as batsmen who keep.

Simon Katich - It was never a problem that he was selected - the problem was that he was dumped. What did he do wrong? He was the best player in the Australian test team, in great form, doing everything right - then suddenly dumped. And he still hasn't come back! It is just insanity! There was Marcus North getting a series of low scores and still staying in the side, all the while Simon Katich was doing everything right but being ignored. Apparently they just decided he was too old and that was it. The same reason they used for not giving David Hussey a test call up. Except that Katich was already in the side!

Shaun Marsh - He has a great ODI record, and a fantastic T20 record - but that should have been the end of it. On a hunch, they gave him a shot in the test format - in spite of a terrible FC record - and after he scored a century they were all saying he was amazing. Except that it was just one innings, and he needed to do a lot more. After 7 tests his average dropped to just 27 and he was finally dumped. They should have dumped him after 3 tests. But it had to wait until he was getting out for a duck every innings in all 3 formats before they finally dumped him for good. He should be playing international T20s though, but tests should never have been on the radar.

Peter Forrest - Okay so he didn't play tests (thank God) but what a mistake was it to play him? The guy wasn't even playing for his state regularly before he moved and had a couple of good innings and suddenly he is in the ODI team! He scored an ODI century too, so surely that hunch paid off, right? Except it was a slow century, and an ODI strike rate of 60 simply isn't good enough. After 15 ODIs his average slumped to 26 and a strike rate of 65 is nowhere near good enough. He was briefly talked about as playing tests, or at least being in the mix for tests, but now it looks like he might struggle to play much more domestic cricket.

Phil Hughes - There was no problem at all with Hughes initially getting selected - he was averaging over 60 in FC cricket and was in amazing form, as a young player to boot. Get him in! But then his unorthodox technique was found out in a big way by English bowler Steve Harmison and soon everyone knew how to get him out. So he was dumped, and quite rightly too. He had to fix his technique. But then, and this was the big problem - they brought him back in spite of him not fixing his technique! He was out of form, his technique was being exploited, and yet he came back! They kept him in too! Finally, they dropped him, after 17 tests and an average of 34, hopefully never to play again - at least unless he fixes his technique.

Ed Cowan - There are worse players than Cowan about - at least he is regularly in his state side, and averages a decent 40 in FC cricket - but he wasn't in particularly good form and was basically picked on a hunch. He hasn't even managed a test century - but with 3 half centuries in 7 tests it is considered to be good enough - in spite of an average of 29! Now, in spite of being out of form and with an average so bad, he retains his spot! Wow! I have him ranked as 21st best batsman in the country yet he makes it to the top 6 in the test squad! Why?

Rob Quiney - The guy averages 38 in FC cricket, is an ODI specialist who should be on the fringes of ODI selection, but suddenly they put him in the test team. Why? Oh, because he scored a half century against South Africa playing for Australia A. He scored 85 in a match in which 3 others scored half centuries and 1 other (Alex Doolan) scored 160 not out! It was a 3 day practice match that barely got into the 3rd innings, with South African batsmen retiring out once they got to 50. For that, and only that, in spite of a string of single figure scores besides, he is suddenly in the team! Incredible!

Now, I could be wrong. After all, I was supposedly wrong to criticise Forrest - who scored a century! I was also supposedly wrong to criticise Shaun Marsh. Not to mention the support that Brad Haddin and Tim Paine had.

But I don't think that I am wrong. I wasn't wrong in any of the others listed above.

If I am wrong, Rob Quiney will get a century, which will then give him a place for the next 15 tests in a row, by which time he will average 25 and have cost Australia a spot in the top 10.

If I am right, Rob Quiney will get out cheaply and the selectors will swing the axe.

Let's hope that I am right.

Read More

Why Rob Quiney SHOULD NOT replace Shane Watson?

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australia (TheSportsNEXT) November 4, 2012: I can hardly believe it but the Australian cricket selectors have just picked Rob Quiney to replace Shane Watson in the test team, and he is tipped to be "very likely" to make his test debut!

Most people probably don't know who Rob Quiney is, so let me give you a quick refresher.

Rob Quiney is an ODI and limited overs specialist who generally replaces Chris Rogers in the team, as Victoria's opener, when they play ODI and T20 cricket, as Chris Rogers, while a much better first class batsman than Quiney, is not as quick between the wickets. Quiney averages a decent 38 in ODIs, at a healthy strike rate of 90, which should have seen him to be close to playing an ODI for Australia - indeed some were tipping him to make it this season. He also averages 38 in first class matches - when he plays, often due to other players being in the national set up - far, far below the national test team.

The rationale for his promotion was apparently on the back of him scoring a half century for Australia A against South Africa in the tour match - when the team total was almost 500 - for 7 declared - and South Africa scored heaps too. It wasn't a competitive match - it was batting practice. It was a 3 day match with nothing attached that wasn't serious.

Before that, Quiney has had a string of low scores in all formats this year - other than a century against Queensland earlier in the year.

We may as well just hand South Africa the series.

It is bad enough having to put up with Ed Cowan - who averages 40 in FC cricket and 29 in tests - but now we have to tolerate another out of form and poor quality batsman on top of him, someone who averages 38 in FC cricket! Neither are in form either!

If we were going for a batsman, it should have been a choice of George Bailey - who has done well in his ODI and T20 games and averages a decent 42 in FC matches - or David Hussey - who averages over 50 in FC matches, has amazing numbers, but isn't in consistently good form and is 35 years old. Usman Khawaja should have been an outside chance too - though he isn't in particularly good form and his test average is pretty poor.

We also could have gone in with an all-rounder, when it would be a choice of Dan Christian or Mitchell Marsh, which should have been a close contest except that Mitchell Marsh has had disciplinary problems lately; hence it should be Christian. Glenn Maxwell should have been an outside chance too, though his bowling has been shown to be substandard for internationals, and his batting isn't good enough.

So, overall, it should be a choice of Bailey vs Christian, depending on if they want a full on batsman or an all rounder.

Playing Quiney is insanity!

Read More

What is wrong with Australian Test squad?

By Adrian Meredith

MELBOURNE, Australian (TheSportsNEXT) October 30, 2012: The first Test match between Australia and South Africa is starting in Sydney from November 2, 2012 and TheSportsNEXT.com’s Adrian Meredith has come up with a list of problems that the Australian selectors made in announcing the 12 men to play in the opening Test match.

Ed Cowan:

The guy has a test batting average of 29.83 - as an opening batsman! He has played 7 test matches, and that simply isn't good enough. The other batsmen in the side all average over 40 - most over 50 - so he is really letting the side down by being 10-20 points behind the others. It is not like he has a rip roaring FC average behind him either - he averages only 40.27 in first class matches. And he isn't in form either! His last FC matches has seen him score 42, 16, 35, 17, 8, 19, 16, 8 and 1 - 162 runs at an average of 18! That is his average in the past 2 months! He is a huge risk. And the alternative - to go in with Shane Watson - who has success opening the batsman at test level - and then have another middle order batsman - probably a choice of George Bailey or David Hussey - seems obvious. Why is Cowan there? What does he offer? He is out of form, has an average FC record overall - so no big potential - and a terrible test record. This seems to be a very dumb decision. I hope that selectors are quick to swing the axe if he fails once more. At a bare minimum, if he is playing, he should know that he can be dropped at any time. If Cowan wasn't going to be dropped, then why were George Bailey, David Hussey and Peter Forrest being groomed for future test selection? Just to replace Ponting? It should have been about Cowan too, as Ponting has actually been in good form, unlike Cowan. Oh - Cowan did score 74 in this week's ODD match - but that was chasing a huge total and was in a one day game - easy runs basically. It shouldn't be enough to have seen him keep his test spot.

Nathan Lyon:

Why are we playing a spinner at Brisbane? We made this mistake in the 2010/11 Ashes, when Xavier Doherty, in spite of being in rip roaring form, failed in conditions that don't suit spinners. Surely we have learned our lesson not to play spinners on pitches that don't suit them. Isn't that what we've all been talking about for the past month? It is not like Lyon is in form anyway. His recent FC returns are 2/131, 2/42, 0/97, 1/83, 1/45, 0/47, 2/101, 1/62, 1/65 and 4/115 - 14 wickets at an average of 56! That is since the last test match! And the 4/115 return, which at least is promising, was almost immediately after the last test match! The guy is out of form - not horribly out of form but not doing particularly well. Sure, so he took some wickets at Brisbane last year but it would be very unlikely if he repeated the dose this time. Not to mention that he said himself that he was out of form, due to being "overloaded with suggestions". There is no way that he should be in the 12. Indeed, I'd be tempted to play all pace at all venues this season, as we simply don't have a competent spinner. Lyon should be considered for Adelaide; but probably shouldn't make the cut. He should not have been in the squad for this test. We should have had 5 pace bowlers fighting for their spots - or else been deciding which of Bailey or David Hussey to pick. He is just taking up a spot. I really hope that he doesn't play.

Ben Hilfenhaus:

Anyone who thinks that Hilfenhaus should play is not aware of just how out of form he is in. He hasn't played a first class match since the test against West Indies - so we have to rely on his ODI and T20 form. In his last 9 matches combined he has taken 8 wickets at an average of 26.25. That might seem okay but most of them are T20s and most decent bowlers average better than 20 in T20 matches. He hasn't taken more than 2 wickets in an innings in any of those matches either. He just isn't bowling very well. The only reason to consider him is because Ryan Harris is still out injured and they want an attack leader. But Mitchell Johnson is in some kind of form, and Johnson is more experienced than Hilfenhaus - not to mention being left handed - and a better batsman. Hilfenhaus's inclusion isn't quite as terrible as Lyon and Cowan being picked but it is pretty bad just the same. The fact that it is apparently a choice of Lyon vs Starc for the last spot - rather than between Hilfenhaus vs Lyon - surely is just because Hilfenhaus is more experienced, having played all of 24 test matches over 3 years.

Brad Haddin:

Okay so Brad Haddin didn't get the spot. Thank God for that. But he was in such terrible form that he shouldn't have even been in the mix. Peter Nevill should have been considered before Haddin - and indeed Haddin will have trouble holding his New South Wales spot with Nevill coming through. Chris Hartley should be the other one to consider if they don't want Wade. Paine is still recovering from injury, and, heck, Haddin has an injury right now! Haddin scored one century - yay - his only score in double figures in the past year in FC matches - and suddenly everyone is talking about him being back in the team. Wade did nothing wrong and doesn't deserve to lose his spot. Yes, they picked Wade, well done; but that should have been such an obvious decision and all that this exercise has done is to breed instability. It makes Wade think that he has to look over his shoulder all of the time. Maybe they want that so that he can play to his best; but it really isn't a very fair situation.

But we have a 12 and there isn't much we can do to bring the likes of George Bailey, David Hussey or Mitchell Johnson back into the mix now. So now all that I can hope for is for the right one to be dropped.

So who would I most like to be dropped?

Nathan Lyon

I think that Cowan is the weakest link but I don't think it is a good idea to play only 5 batsmen. I just hope that if Cowan fails again that they dump him immediately, is all that I can say. I don't want a repeat of the Shaun Marsh debacle - or the Phillip Hughes - or the Peter Forrest - or the Marcus North - debacles. Let's not make the same mistake 5 times in a row.

Read More

Mohinder Amarnath admires Cricket Australia's transparent AGM

By Bipin Dani

MUMBAI, India (TheSportsNEXT) October 26, 2012: Australia may have been the first cricketing nation, whose Annual General Meeting (AGM) was shown live on TV yesterday.

-->

Had the Indian cricket board been so transparent, the people in India would have known why and how Mohinder Amarnath was replaced as a selector in the last AGM. Amarnath, when approached for his comments sent an SMS saying: “I admire CA. Great".

"All proceedings today were conducted in an open forum, including the vote to amend CA’s constitution and by-laws and elect our first fully independent Directors. All media were invited to attend and report on all aspects of the meeting", Matthew Slade, the Cricket Australia's Corporate Communications Manager, said.

"This is the first time that Cricket Australia allowed media into the AGM. We also streamed the entire event, including the voting, live over the Internet", he further added.

On asked whether CA, in future, have any plan to have live telecasts of the National Selection Panel meetings, Slade said, "One step at a time…".

Former India selector, Kishan Rungta, who first floated the idea of having live telecasts of the selection committee meetings, once again said, "We should have all meetings related to the game, e.g. selection meetings, technical committee meetings etc. be shown live on TVs".

"However, I am not in favour of AGM be shown live on TV. There are certain issues like funding, sponsorship, security etc. are discussed in the AGM and the people can't be the part of it. How the relation between India and Pakistan (on cricketing field) can be discussed in open", he asks.

"The political situation in India and Australia are different. I am not in favour of live telecasts of the AGM", he signed off.

Read More