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

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