Published: Jul 02, 2011, 03:57 PM (IST)
Edited: Mar 27, 2014, 12:37 PM (IST)
By Adrian Meredith
The Australian cricket team is not the force it was four years ago. And a lot has to do with the retirement of several stalwarts, of whom four stand out – Matthew Hayden, Adam Gilchrist, Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath.
Hayden was a late bloomer. But when he finally started doing well internationally, he was unstoppable. Australia simply doesn’t have a replacement for him. Adam Gilchrist was not only the best ‘keeper in the country – and probably the world – but also one of the best batsman, an “all rounder” who, at his peak, could make the team either as just a keeper or purely as a batsman. Warne is the best spinner that Australia has ever produced who allowed the policy of “playing a spinner at all times” to work for a team that did not have a quality spinner between Richie Benaud’s retirement in 1964 to Warne’s arrival in 1992. McGrath had the ability to will batsmen out and intimidate them, which none of the present Australian fast bowlers are able to do.
No matter what Australia does, they cannot hope to replace these legendary names. Australia needs to structure its team differently.
Australia tried out Phil Hughes, who potentially could have been as good as Hayden – and still might be, but now they are content with Shane Watson, who is not as good a batsman as Hayden but does a job. He also offers that occasional contribution as an amazing bowler.Watson doesn’t bowl consistently, but when he is on song he is up there with the best in the world. Using him as an opening batsman has got the most out of his batting, which is very consistent now. So the opening position is solved now. Watson is currently Australia’s best player in all formats and is a more than capable replacement for Hayden.
So then why can’t Australia apply the same logic for the other three spots? Rather than trying to replace a player with the similar kind of players, why can’t Australia instead go for something a different?
On the surface, it looks like we should replace Gilchrist with a good batsman who keeps a bit. In Australia, the two most likely are Brad Haddin – he scores very quickly and is great value in ODI and especially T20 cricket – and Tim Paine, who can smash it around and can also be very defensive if need be. But these are not the two best ‘keepers in Australia. Since Gilchrist retired, the level of Australian fielding, especially in Tests, has dropped significantly. Perhaps you can cope with a poor ‘keeper in the shorter formats, where a dropped catch could mean you have to score a bit faster. But in Tests it can mean a difference between winning and losing. Australia should go in with Matthew Wade. His batting is improving, and is already closer to Haddin and Paine. The ‘keeper is the leader in the field. We were perfectly fine with weak batsmen who could keep well like Ian Healy and Rod Marsh. Why does Australia need to suddenly have a ‘keeper who can bat? We already went through the Wayne Phillips era in the early 1980s, when we had a batsman who was forced to keep wicket, just to improve the batting. Surely that disaster should be a lesson.
Had Stuart MacGill not retired after one bad performance, he may have been able to adequately replace Warne. Even Brad Hogg could have done a job. But, sadly, both are retired and there are no world class spinners in the Australian domestic circuit.
Nathan Hauritz, Jason Krezja and Xavier Doherty lead the new crop of spinners. On the right surfaces and against the right opponents, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to play one of them. Australia has two batting all-rounders who spin the ball in Steve Smith and Steve O’Keefe.
It still doesn’t mean Australia have to play a spinner at all times. For example, when visiting India, Australia should focus on an all-pace attack. Similarly, when playing in Perth or Brisbane, the Australia team should focus their attack on pace. It would be worth picking a spinner when going to England or West Indies or on certain surfaces in Australia, where any spinner would be useful. But they shouldn’t be wasted when you need a world class spinner. Picking a pace bowler would be a more sensible option.
It took McGrath years to become an intimidating fast bowler. Courtney Walsh and Curtly Ambrose had it towards the end of their careers, and Allan Donald had it at his peak. But many bowlers never get it. Australia have bowlers who could develop it, but then as soon as they start to be heading down on that track they are dumped. Stuart Clark was starting to get there when he was dumped. Ditto with Doug Bollinger. Ryan Harris could develop it one day, but he is suddenly on the fringes. Clint McKay has some of that trickery about him, but apparently isn’t even a serious contender for selection. The erratic Mitchell Johnson is a hit or miss bowler, who can be out of form one day and then come up in with seven wickets in an innings haul the next day. Johnson and Watson are similar kinds of cricketers and should be used in a similar way.
The key is just to find roles that actually suit who we do have, rather than blindly try to replace players with others who are vaguely similar to them. Australia needs to use its players intelligently. It should have Johnson at No 6 or 7 and use him as a shock bowler, not as a regular bowler. The team needs to go in with four fast bowlers most of the time.
Maybe it would be a good idea to ask Hayden, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath pick their replacements. And also why not have a coach who actually has international experience, such as Geoff Marsh or Tom Moody or Allan Border?
(Adrian Meredith, an Australian from Melbourne, has been very passionate about cricket since he was seven years old. Because of physical challenges he could not pursue playing the game he so dearly loved. He loves all kinds of cricket – from Tests, ODIs, T20 – at all levels and in all countries and writes extensively on the game)
