There was one, though, dissenting voice from former
fast-bowler Rodney Hogg who slammed the list as a travesty and an example of the
dire state of Australian cricket, the end of the world and other histrionics.
With this in mind, I decided to take a closer look at the
list to see if it really was time to pack a bug-out-bag and head for a bomb
shelter, or whether things are ok.
Here is what I found….
The Method:
When looking at the players, I looked at the role they were
selected to play, the number of games they played and whether they were
successful, unsuccessful or moderately successful.
I also took into account whether their careers were
curtailed by injury or the Stuart Law rule (where they are dropped for an
existing member of the team, despite good performances).
I also took into account the year in which they made their debut, and
whether it was possibly 'too early to tell' whether they had been successful.
Now, much of these categories are subjective, but its my
blog and no-one reads it, so I’ll do as I please. With this in mind, I present my summary.
Please keep in mind that I was a little lax on accurate performance statistics, often rounding total runs scored up or down. Also, Ashton Agar is highlighted as the first debutante since Darren Lehmann took over as Coach.
The findings:
5. The majority
weren’t failures
While 49 players making their debut in ten years may indicate a
change-over of nearly half the team every year, the reality is far from true.
42% of the players were classified as ‘Unsuccessful’,
meaning 58% (the majority, for those of you not familiar with forks and traffic
lights) were acceptable cricketers.
This takes extra precedence when you take into account that
of the ‘Unsuccessful’ players, 2 had their careers curtailed by injury (Shaun
Tait and Beau Casson), while 3 are defined as being “Too early to tell” (the
resurgent Phillip Hughes, Usman Khawaja and George Bailey) and 1 falls under
the Stuart Law rule (Graham Manou).
Graham Manou, right, his Cricinfo profile omits the phrase he may be heard muttering to himself “what might have been” |
Taking these 6 players out of the overall count means that
the overall Unsuccessful percentage of players moves down to 33%.
4. You can’t Spin bad
Spin
The obvious area where selection could be criticised is in
the Spin bowling department. Of the players defined as Unsuccessful, 45% are
Spin Bowlers. Of these, the average number of matches played is only 2.1,
indicating that they either weren’t given much of a go, or shouldn’t have been
there at all.
Not naming names |
The ineptitude of these players is reinforced when compared
with the records of batsmen who were adjudged as Unsuccessful, who averaged 12
matches each. This figure (12 matches)
could also have been higher if not for the inclusion of Rob Quiney (2 matches).
3. I may be being a
bit harsh
Using “Moderate” to define a players record is a bit of a
cop-out, they either are or they aren’t, but it does allow me to add an element
of success in determining how well the selectors performed in the period.
Looking at the players adjudged as moderate is quite
telling. Batsmen and Quick bowlers make
up 33% of the total each, contributing over 3,500 runs (from 5 players) and
over 200 wickets (also 5 players).
Interestingly, the “Moderate” batsmen played an average of 11.8 Tests,
almost identical to the 11.4 played by the Quicks.
Its also important to take into consideration that 4 of the
Moderately performed players were unable to take the next step due to injury
(Andrew McDonald, Ben Hilfenhaus, Tim Paine and Shaun Marsh), 4 were adjudged
“Too early to tell” (Steve Smith, Mitchell Starc, James Faulkner and Alex
Doolan) and 1 suffered from the Stuart Law Rule (Brad Hodge).
2. May the lessons of
the past not be forgotten
Only 15 players that made their debut for Australia before 2009, leaving
34 to debut since then. Of the 15 that made their debut before 2009; 5 were spinners, 4
were Quicks and Batsmen, while there was 1 All-Rounder and 1 ‘Keeper.
More tellingly though, was that only 33% of these were
judged Unsuccessful and that 2 of those were Cullen and Tait. The others were Spinners (Cameron White,
Jason Krejza and Dan Cullen).
The consistent trend here?
Unsurprisingly, that selecting players to perform in the Spinnning role
that aren’t up to it will not succeed and will not last. Equally unsurprising is that this applies to
all other roles too, though poor spinners seem to get found out sooner rather
than later.
Not naming names. |
Given the comparably poor level of success experienced by
the Australian cricket team in the period of 2004 – 2014, or in particular 2009
– 2013, one could mount an argument for selecting the best team & not
simply picking a Spinner to make up the numbers.
Further to this, it is worth noting that continued success
appears to be more prevalent where there are fewer debuts. This is particularly telling when taking into
account that only 4 players have made their debut since Darren Lehmann became coach in
mid-2013, while others have had their careers resurrected (e.g. Dave Warner,
Chris Rogers).
1. Hogg isn’t that
bright
Of the players that Cricket Australia has selected in the
past 10 years, more than half of them were not Unsuccessful (sorry for the
double negative).
This figure jumps to 66% not being Unsuccessful when the
poor Spinners are removed and jumps higher still when players impacted by
injury, the Stuart Law rule or who are “Too early to tell” are taken into
account.
For the selection years since 2009, 2011 is a real stand-out
with 10 debutants in that year alone, or 21% of the total debutants in the
2004-2014 period. Of these, 4 were
adjudged Successful, 3 Not Successful (including Khawaja and Starc) and 3
Moderate.
The average number of matches for players that made their debut in
this year is 13, indicating that many of these players are still going around 3
years later.
In Graham Yallops excellent book “A lamb to the slaughter”,
recalling the dreaded 78/79 Ashes series, Hogg is seen as a bit of a
mystery. He takes a record number of
wickets for the series, but simply gives up bowling when the mood seems to take
him and is generally the stereotype fast bowler (aggressive, short-tempered and
a little thick).
Given the accuracy of his comments on team selection, I for
one advocate that we listen to the likes of Yallop in future.
No comments:
Post a Comment