It’s also true that limited overs internationals are, always have and seemingly always will, be treated as trials for the Test side in Australia. All indications are that this is a hang-over from the coaching and selection philosophy of Bobby Simpson. The seminal moment for nearly 20 years of subsequent success has always been identified as the World Cup win in 1987. However, Test success was always the goal with a World Cup win the vehicle towards being the best Test side in the world and the players selected accordingly. It’s no coincidence that several players from previous successful World Cup campaigns were subsequently selected for or recalled to the Test side soon afterwards.

A recent interview with Simpson by Sportstar Weekly confirms the som??ewhat anachr?onistic attitudes towards the shorter forms of the game.

“[Players] need to play Twenty20 cricket, which is the most boring of all forms. While I like and enjoy it, it’s a bit like one-day cricket. If you don’t get a close finish, what have you got? A very ordinary game of cricket. Now you are going to get more ordinary games in Twenty20 purely because the players would be going out so hard early on and we will see a lot of collapses. It doesn’t give you enough time to rebuild.”

The problem with this attitude is that it’s based in the early form of T20, where the game was looked upon as little more than an exhibition game, a match for players to have some fun with little else attached to it. With every passing tournament, teams do much to prove confound these thoughts by taking the competitions deadly seriously. The slog-fest mentality is also a relic of the past as teams may still lose early wickets but are better at recovering to either win or at least give the opposition an almighty scare. Teams losing four or more quick wickets then just playing out their overs are becoming far less common. The game is almost never dead anymore.

The lack of evolution of opinion is problematic for many reasons and goes to the heart of Australia’s cricketing psyche. To play for Australia at any level, a player serves his interests well if he expresses a desire to make the highest level available at the club. Imagine, if you will, the gnashing of teeth in this country if a first-class player’s stated aim wasn’t to make the Test side or if they didn’t say at least once with a dreamy look in their eyes “Yeah, always been my dream as a kid to wear the baggy green.”

The problem is, there are only eleven Test spots. So you have several groups of players for whom playing Test cricket is either out of reach or dependent on injuries. If you’re good enough to make the Test side and want to play Test cricket, you have to bide your time in the one-day sides and keep scoring runs in Sheffield Shield cricket to continue being selected. If you’re not quite good enough to play Tests but still express that you’d love to play Test cricket, same deal. The thing is, if everyone above you is saying “unless it’s Tests, it means nothing” or fobbing you off with “Look, keep at it, a spot might open up in the Test side, you never know”, perhaps you’d decide that if you’re going to play meaningless cricket, you may as well go play meaningless cricket for a ton of money and make your life a bit beyond merely comfortable. Either way, you have some options, even if they’re not really what you’d like.

Then there are the players for whom Test cricket might not be a possibility or even that desirable. It seems to be the case that if you take a more pragmatic approach to your career and decide it’s not worth it to ‘pay your dues’ for years, with little to no prospect of reward, or decide it’s not likely to happen soon, none of the above options would even be available to you. You simply won’t get a T20 or one-day spot because they’re already taken by blokes looking to crack the Test side. So to hang onto an international spot, you’d better say you have Test ambitions.

This goes some way to explaining why guys like Dirk Nannes and Brad Hodge are anathema to Australian selectors and why they’re over-looked for all forms of the game. Generally-speaking, they’re out of Test contention and, by some indications, aren’t terribly fussed about it, now looking to make a good living from their sport. So they don’t get a look-in for any of the teams. The problem? You don’t have the best players making up the best possible team. This doesn’t appear to be a problem for the Australia selectors; as long as Test cricket is healthy, sacrificing a few tournaments along the way to Test success won’t matter. Right?

Each of those groups of players is subject to a talent drain towards very lucrative IPL contracts with many more options in other countries likely to present themselves soon. These fears have been raised on numerous occasions but they’ve not really materialised yet. Partly this is explained by spots being available in the Test side at various times owing to poor form o injury as Australia looks to re-build it’s Test side. However, had the IPL been around during the 90’s, it would have provoked some serious thought for players like Darren Lehmann, Stuart Law, Jamie Cox, Brad Hodge, Matthew Hayden and all the other players who were outside of Test reckoning for so long. The advice to “hold on, you’ll get a spot once an injury comes up. Just keep churning out the runs,” would have worn thin very quickly. With other options now up for grabs, there are many talented players who are gearing their games to make it in T20 because they don’t want to waste their professional lives hoping for something which might not happen anyway.

The options back then to supplement your income were to go play entire off-seasons in England. Now, IPL gives players the opportunity to make far more money in half the time. Tempting if you’ve no great desire to sacrifice long periods away from home to play in a team which doesn’t have the very best available players to play matches against teams with exactly the same problem. For many players, Test cricket is the most desirable form to aim for because it’s the most competitive form of the game, the honour of representing one’s country is great and all but deep down the contest is where it’s at. If the perception that Tests are the highest form of the game was to change, why would players opt to stick with it?

Already it’s possible to make a ton of money from playing cricket but not for your country, Andrew Symonds is an archetypical example; after numerous discipline problems, he can play the game he loves for the teams he chooses to at a very high level, making plenty of cash in the process.

At state level, selection panels have been quick to use T20 specialists but at international level, players with one eye on the Baggy Green have been preferred. Making Michael Clarke captain of the international T20 side, despite being without a T20I half-century to date, is a strong indicator of the selectors’ attitudes at present and his own comments here here do little to assuage concern:

“There have been reasons why I haven’t taken part in the last couple of IPLs,” Clarke told a press conference at the SCG on Monday. “I’ve always said that it’s a competition I would love to take part in at the right time. If the timing is right, if my body is healthy and I’m feeling good and a team wants me, it could be a great opportunity to prepare for what’s going to be a huge Twenty20 World Cup.”

Sure sounds enthusiastic about it, doesn’t he?

Australia has always been comfortable with players being declared Test specialists but, do the same with T20’s/ODI’s and you’re unlikely to make an appearance for those teams. Playing limited-over cricket has to be looked-upon as a legitimate career choice and not just preparation for playing Tests. The current selection policy for the T20 side means disastrous campaigns such as Australia’s T20 World Cup are somewhat inevitable. As embittering as it seems, the Australian cricketing hierarchy needs to come to terms with the fact that there will be players who will want to play for the international T20/ODI sides, and be the best players available, but have less interest in playing Test cricket, preferring to play for an IPL team or similar in between T20I commitments. The situation where players are completely excluded from all international selection because they don’t have Test ambitions has to change or the quality of the pool available for Tests will diminish.

Phillip Hughes

4

Expectations were high after Hughes` brilliant beginning against South Africa and in terms of what can be expected of a young, impulsive, unorthodox stroke-maker, he`s shown glimpses of form. However, once a player is in the Test side, results are expected and in those terms, Hughes just hasn`t impacted to any meaningful degree on the ser??ies??. Yet. Hughes has a great eye, no-one works harder, is determined to succeed and has a winning pedigree. Watch this space

Simon Katich

8

A trademark hundred in Cardiff was followed by a gritty knock at Lords sullied by a perilous pull shot (albeit, intercepted by a fantastic catch) and somewhat injudicious shot trying to force the pace in pursuit of 521. Katich is maintaining his great form of the last two years and still appears serene at the crease so he can be said to have had an excellent series so far with the promise of more. Is one o??f Australia??`s key players in clawing back from 0-1 down.

Ricky Ponting

7.5

Played a bullish ??hundred at Cardiff and wasn`t able to get going in his Lord`s innings` but appears in good form, quick on his feet as the spinners found to their detriment. His captaincy has generally been on the mark although his predilection for questionable fields has been replaced by one for questionable bowling changes, the pressure seemingly manifesting itself in his uncharacteristically poor fielding at Lords. Purely on the basis of the occasion, being an Ashes series, you`d b??ack Ponting for at least one more significant score in the series.

Michael Hussey

3

Word on the street is that Hussey`s footwork is slow at the moment and certainly, he`s having to work very hard for his runs. Definitely not in the pink form-wise and another failure at Edgbaston would rig??htly see his place for the remainder of the series in question. The Australian selectors seem keen to back him for now but will be looking at either he or North to make way i??f Watson bats and bowls well in the tour match.

Michael Clarke

9.5

The second Test at Lords may well be looked upon in retrospect as the mome??nt when Michael Clarke went from `very good Test player` to `great`. An all-too-short?? 83 in Cardiff was followed by a sublime 136 at Lords when, despite chasing 521, for a short while Australia appeared in with a chance of winning the game and shattering a world record along with it. The hallmark of a genuine match-winner is one who takes responsibility for the team`s fortunes on his shoulders and Michael Clarke appears primed to do exactly that for Australia from now on.

Marcus North

6

Marcus North`s form is generally up-and-down and the perception is that after playing a superb hand in the first Test, a succession of low scores will follow. Certainly at Lords he appeared rattled by the occa??sion and in both innings played `get-out` shots which compounds why his place is rated as more vulnerable than that of Mike Hussey`s, despite scoring more runs of late. One reason for his initial inclusion was overs of handy off-spin but he d?idn`t appear terribly likely to take wickets in his journeys to the crease. Without his bowling being a factor, his place is that much more vulnerable, particularly with the team needing another genuine bowling option.

Brad Haddin

7

Has had an excellent series with the bat, playing very slick knocks in both Tests but the reason for?? being in the team, his `keeping, has been off. No major let-offs but his anticipation behind the sticks appears a little slow which resulted in many byes at Lords as he struggled to cope with movement after the ball passed the batsmen. As long as he`s batting well, questions about his play will be minimal but he`d do well to quiet them entirely with a screamer or two.

Mitchell Johnson

5

Unexpectedly, Mitchell Johnson`s has caused more than a few headaches for the Australian selectors. Despite bowling on both sides of the wicket (sometimes off it) and at just about every imaginable length, against all standards of what constitutes good test match bowling, he`s managed to take 8 wickets in the first two Tests. Clearly, though, he`s not bowling very well, a lower arm at delivery appearing to be the culprit as the menacing swing from South Africa has all but disappe?ared with runs flowing from his bowling. His reputation should keep him in the side for the rest of the series as should the knowledge that from his previous low periods, a far improved bowler has generally emerged. That he`s taken as many wickets as he has with such poor bowling should wo?rry the English batsmen, especially if he sorts himself out.

Nathan Hauritz

7

One of two surprise packets for the Australians, the bowler most thought would bottle up an end and be happy not to get smash?ed has morphed into a genuine wicket-taking option. He appears to lack the penetration to?? really run through a side but evident in his bowling has been good drift and sometimes vicious spin. His dismissal of Strauss in the second innings at Lords with a classic off-spinning slip catch should give him heart and enough confidence to realise the spinner`s spot in the Australian side is his for the taking if he`s good enough as no-one else is putting pressure on his position. He`s unlikely to dominate in the remaining Tests, especially considering that they`re likely to be fairly flat pitches but it`ll be a job well done if he keeps taking the occasional mini-bag in support of the pace attack.

Peter Siddle

5.5

A cleaner, (much) leaner Merv Hughes, Siddle`s figures belie the quality of his work so far. While Johnson surprises with the occasional ball on ??the pitch, Siddle`s bowling has been menacing and but for a bit of a luck and better fielding, would have had more wickets. Always asking questions of the batsmen, his biggest bowling fault so far has often been releasing the pressure after a series of good deliveries. His length is about right and always threatening so if he tightens his line a little and gets a pitch more to his liking, there`s no reason why he can`t take quite a few wickets as the series wears on. Almost there but not quite putting the whole package together.

Ben Hilfenhous

7.5

The other surprise, Ben Hilfenhous wasn`t even looking like being selected for the Tests but, when picked, has?? looked the most consistent bowler on either side outside of Flintoff. In the right conditions, his swing has been prodigious and he`s caused many problems for attacking players such as Kevin Pietersen as well as testing the techniques of Strauss and Cook when the ball is new. When the ball hasn`t swung, he`s still been very difficult to get awa?y and able to bowl for long spells. While Johnson is busy finding himself, Hilfenhous is shaping up to be the workhorse Australian desperately needs to keep more adventurous Englishmen in their shells.

The cricket coaching genre has been dominated by the International Cricket Captain series of games and with good reason; Empire Games has produced the definitive coaching simulators of the past 10 years, remaining virtually unchallenged during that time. The fortunes of the series have dipped a little recently, however, as ICC 3 was released with much fanfare and an enhanced 3D match highlights engine but complaints have emanated from users regarding the clunkiness of the match interface, stability of the software, features missing from the latest version that were present in previous games and, more importantly, the realism of the matches. It’s also felt that the 3D graphics did little to enhance the game play at all being little more than a gimmick, especially since they weren’t that great anyway. The release of ICC 2009 has done much to address the realism of the matches but it’s still generally felt that the franchise’s hold on ‘best cricket sim’ has slipped a little.

Enter Rockingham software and their game Cricket Coach 2007. The original game’s interface was reminiscent of the earlier versions of ICC series and included all of the detail and control a cricket coaching simulator should. Many options to control the bowling and batting exist which drill down to controlling exactly how your batsmen will play against specific bowlers and vice versa, control over the field, etc. Outside of match play, you as coach were able to manage team selection, finances, squads, transfer, etc. The largest missing piece of the game was a player editor which was later released as a 3rd party add-on. Aside from that, for all its great options, the game generally lacked polish, the interface slow and the game somewhat unstable depending upon the platform. Worth buying but clearly inferior to the vastly more developed ICC line of games.

Well, all the above has changed. Whilst keeping all of its great management options and the general feel of the game alive, Rockingham have loosed upon the Earth a game which competes now very strongly with the ICC series. Eschewing unnecessary bells and whistles, the interface is more professional than the 2007 game, far faster, rock-solid and still cute enough to raise a giggle occasionally. The representation of the game as its being played is good enough and comes across as zany on occasions; it was a nice touch when a wicket fell and the ball didn’t end until each of the fielders ran towards the catcher to congratulate him. Button touches are quick and responsive without the freezing evident in the 2007 version of the game. The look of the interface is far more polished and it just looks more like a game you’d be happy to shell out cash for. It’s still not quite as flashy as the ICC series but that’s not really the point.

All domestic teams are included in this game so you can captain anyone and be subject to (and annoyed by) the whims of the national selectors as they pilfer your team just when you need a win. You have full options over managing your finances/imports/young players but, most importantly, there is a player editor. Pitting your mates XI vs international teams is great fun. Player lists are complete right down to fringe domestic players and the data-driven nature of this game means that player ratings are updated regularly as their careers progress, providing a real-time career progression for all players.. This is one area where Cricket Coach has it over the rest of the pack and should continue to focus on this as the series’ point of difference.

The point of a game like this is that it’s for the nerds. There really is a ridiculous number of options for control over a season/match/innings/over and they all have consequences, desirable or not depending on your team’s fortunes. From this perspective, Cricket Coach’s stripped-down approach achieves exactly what it set out to achieve without, I believe, the ‘wow’ factor being present. It still has the feel of a game developed by hobbiests but once you get past that, it’s clear this is a game for the cricket tragic and genuine strategists/statisticians amongst the cricketing population.

Special mention has to go to the Cricket Coach online forum where fans of the series have direct access to the game developers. All bugs are reported here and acknowledged if not directly acted upon by developers who clearly take pride in the realism of their product. This community interaction is unique to Rockingham softwa?re and shows off their end-user focus.

As for the gameplay, the representation of the match is fairly basic with the sounds more for effect than for a truly immersive experience. You can watch and control every ball or speed up play and interject at key moments. This feature a vast improvement on the 2007 game where sometimes, it would race along at break-neck speed and before you knew it, you were all out and 15 overs into your opponent’s innings.

The realism of the simulation seemed reasonable enough but I think there’s too much of an advantage in the ‘all-out attack’ option for the pace bowlers as wickets do tend to tumble too easily. The bowlers don’t tire too quickly in this mode too so Shoaib Akhtar can bowl full out for a 12 -over spell which doesn’t, obviously, reflect reality! In the matches I simmed, there also seemed to be a few too many dodgy LBW decisions where the ball had been edged. All that said, the quirks didn’t inspire the same incredulity at rather inconvenient collapses/ridiculously high scores as the ICC3/2009 did so the simulation engine, whilst not without quirks, appears about right and will hopefully keep getting better as the model is refined.

The overall presentation of the game, to be brutally honest, is still is one of a smaller software outfit. The Web 2.0 look?? of the buttons is a vast improvement on the 2007 incarnation but still gives the appearance of a ?web-based game, especially with the oh-so-2002-Flash animations of the umpires and in-game graphics. Only when you start to tinker with the options do you uncover the stunning wealth of gameplay on offer here.

This game as a pure cricket simulation is outstanding. Purchases of the ICC series of games were driven by squad/statistic updates (the interface barely changed until ICC 3) whereas that won’t be a factor with this game. Short of physically controlling throw-downs at a struggling player at a training session, one wonders how they could possibly improve on the gameplay or make the experience more detailed to drive purchases of future versions, especially as stability problems have been all but eliminated. For mine, Rockingham have made a rod for their own back because the game as it stands in conjunction with its player editor and regular player updates means that they don’t have too much further to go to make the perfect cricket simulation. This will make future versions a tough sell to already very pleased customers.

That said, cricket simulations in general have suffered from a lack of immersion in the total coaching experience and Cricket Coach 2009 is no different.?? Football managers in other games have to deal with media interactions, off-field antics, etc. This is a massive opportunity for Rockingham to take the tired cricket sim model to the next level as ICC missed out with their latest version and with Empire Interactive relinquishing control of the game to Childish Things, the lag in development time for the next version has created a huge gap for Rockingham to fill.

So, a game for the nerds it is and on that basis, it should be a roaring success amongst that demographic. But, although it does look and play better than the 2007 version, there’s less to attract the more casual cricket simmer. If that’s the aim then fair play to Rockingham and at around the AUS $35 mark, it’s a cheap buy. That said, it’s the same price as ICC 2009 and to the casual gamer, it may not appear to be as well-developed as ICC’s fully 3D product and very slick interface. ICC’s foray into the mobile game market with its PSP version appears to have been a rank failure so for Rockingham to attract persons outside the obvious demographic, it’ll need to enhance the immersion factor. ICC sacrificed some substance for some style and in later incarnations of the game, I expect Cricket Coach to do the same. Hopefully it’ll maintain its inner geek because the depth of the game really is stunning once you get past it’s initial presentation.

Presentation: Web 2.0 look abounds with associated minimal Flash-style animations but the interface is fast, neat and does the job. Va??st improvement on the 2007 version. 6/10

Graphics: Minimal, no 3D. Rese??mbles a web-based game. 4/10

Sound: For effect only, no in-game music to speak of. M?ore cute than anyth??ing. 3/10

Gameplay: From the perspective of a pure cricket simulation, the sheer depth is amazing. The player editor is outstanding. For overall immersion as an actu?al cricket coach/manager, much work is needed. 10/10 for the sim aspect alone.

Lasting appeal: By nerds, for nerds who will play it to death. ??For the regular punter, not much appeals. In future versions, wider success depends on whether the development team wants to appeal to a broader market or remain? within their niche. 7/10

Overall: I loved it, will buy a copy and be a devoted fan forever. But I’m a nerd. Would love to see the next game take the genre where it seems others didn’t have the resources to go 7/10.

The Australian bowlers were subjected to a hefty workload in the first innings against a quick-scoring batting line-up on a very true pitch. All of the pace attack bowled 20 or more overs, Hilfenhous with 31. This was without Nathan Hauritz`s bowling due to a dislocated middle finger on his bowling hand courtesy of Andrew Strauss. That England `only` got to 450 is a testament to how well the bowling unit covered for the actually missing Hauritz and the virtual??ly missing Johnson. Had England been allowed to escape to 600, which they were threatening to, Australia would simply have been out of the match from that point on?wards. 450 meant they had a chance of staying in it.

Imagine the dismay of the bowlers who, on said flat pitch, watched as the batsmen threw away their innings` one after th?e other. The number of mis-timed pulls would have made even Andrew Hildit??ch question where their heads were at as the chaos unfolded in wicket order;

Hughes: wild swipe caught down the leg-side
Ponting: tied down by tight bowling
Katich: seemingly set to pass 50 and having just batted Australia out of early trouble, decided to hook Onions down to fine-leg only to be caught by, albeit, a great catch but somewhat an injudicious stroke
Hussey: had just passed 50 and lost Katich, average leave to a ball which ran up the slope
Clarke: charitably, a very tame chip to short mid-wicket
North: needed to knuckle down, pull wasn`t on, dragged on to the stumps
Johnson: pull to mid-wicket, again, when the side needed some more introspective batting (and he`s capable of it)
Haddin: high bouncer, pulled to short mid-wicket

After only 60-odd overs, the bowlers were out in the field again, 220 runs behind in the match and expected to take wickets a bowler short. They received some good news when Hauritz appeared at the bowling crease and took a couple of quick wickets and, certainly, in the middle session against Bopara and Pietersen, they bowled very well without luck (or support from the field) but the threads stitching together the bowling effort unraveled quickly in the final session as Siddle and Hilfen?hous tired. Hauritz was taken?? to by Prior and others and Johnson did little to improve his day, struggling to consistently hit a line or length anywhere near being threatening.

However, all the problems with the bowling mask serious issues with the batting. Whilst the going was good in Cardiff, the Australian batting line-up smacked the living daylights out of the English bowlers but in favourable condit?ions here, couldn`t get anywhere near 300 after their bowlers did just enough to keep them in the match. Cardiff`s batting papered over the inexperience and lack of grit seemingly inherent in the Australian batting.

Now is the time, guys. No-one is saying the bowlers? are without fault (some emnity must come their way for conceding 450 in first innings) but the larger problem lies with the mettle of the Australian batting line-up. There are two days? to bat (presuming England don`t bat for a period in the morning session) and a win is off the cards. South Africa proved it could be done last year at the same ground and the pitch isn`t playing any serious tricks yet. There`s a sniff of bad weather around so if there`s anyone in the Australian team for whom a return on investment is due, it`s the batting line-up.

For more Einstein-related fun, give this a go;

Einstein blackboard fun

Let`s see some of your witticisms on the forum!

“I`m pretty sure there`s going to be a little bit said on the field and Pietersen is a pretty confident lad, he likes to say a bit, so I`m sure there will be a few run-ins between us and him.

Tough words, Vicious. Maybe next you`d like to send Pietersen a letter tellin?g him how angry you are with him?

Thank God (McGrath) Siddle is there, though. Australia looks likely to field a bowling attack of Johnson and Lee in the first Test of the series and had Shane Watson been fit, he`d be in the side too. The orgiastic?? jostling for position in front of mirrors before play would have ruptured the very fabric of the space-time continuum with the s??heer overpowering force of its metrosexuality.

The lack of sledging has not gone unnoticed by others. Perennially incapable of truly retiring from the game, Shane Warne has taken it upon himself to not only slate the current English number 3 Ravi Bopara (fresh from three consecutive Test hundreds) but to actively push for the selection of players who are injured/past it (Vaughan) or are so new to the game, they`re bound to struggle (Ad?il Rashid).

On Bopara;

“Bopara is a good first-class cricketer, but he is not an international cricketer. I think he`s got all the talent in the world, but I just don`t think he`s got the temperament. He can be put off his game too easily and he`s too worried about how he looks.

“Let`s hope England aren`t relying on Bopara [for the Ashes] because they could be in trouble.”

Criticising another for being overly concerned about looks? Oh Warnie, you ar?e the living end.

The conclusion to be drawn from such inactio??n? Neithe??r side is truly sure how the series is going to pan out. So they`re worried about saying something which will be remembered down the years as a `grovel moment`. It`s a sad state of affairs because Australian players used to back themselves and the needle between players not only provided spice for the series but worked in putting the opposition off their game.

Sort yourselves out, Australia.

– Phillip Hughes will be out for several run-a-ball scores < 30, at least one of them ending with Hughes standing behind the 'keeper swinging wildy towards fine-leg, middle stump cart-wheeling backwards, the bowler totally confused as he subsequently reveals he was aiming for his stupid earring. - Peter Siddle will get mad. REAL mad. - Shane Watson will hack the internet and remove all 78345 articles about his latest knee injury, replacing them with a one-page sheet entitled 'Shane Watson Facts'. - Brett Lee will go for 100+ runs in every innings he plays but will also score a similar amount with the bat, claiming it "evens itself out." No mate...... - Mitchell Johnson will break Greame Smith's finger. Somehow. In other more serious news, in what must surely be the worst-kept secret of all time about anything, Aussie pace bowlers Brett Lee and Stuart Clark will target Andrew Strauss. That they might not play in the first Test hasn't deterred them from doing so. Source: Cricinfo

The blog is a col??laborative, multi-national effort composed of esteemed members of the Cricket Web family; Zac Gelman and ?Cameron Burge (Australia), Martyn Corrin and Richard Dickinson (England), Will Quinn (Ireland) and yours truly, Corey Taylor also from Australia.

Over the course of the summer, you’ll be seeing the series through the eyes of the above contributors and we’ll be doing our best to provide balanced commentary but also some of the more off-the-wall happenings which occur in an Ashes summer. Whatever happens, hopefully Australia England cricket is the winner.

Source: Foxsports

In other news, England have picked leg-spinner Adil Rashid in their provisional squad, making him the third spinner included and increasing Engand’s lead in the ‘Spinner’s Ashes’ to 3, up from 2. The score is now 3-0.

Michael Vaughan was interviewed by local press and said “Nanny nanny, poo poo, we’ve got more spinners than you…… Eh? What do you mean I missed out?!”

Source: Sky Sports

That players performing near the top of domestic T20 in Australia and the IPL in South Africa were overlooked would appear to be a dangerous precedent as those players may well more seriously entertain lucrative options, potentially giving up on playing for Australia altogether. Clearly Cricket Australia are worried about players doing exactly that as a recent Memorandum of Understanding between CA and the Australian Cricketer’s Association (ACA), with associated pay increases, was signed yesterday. This may quell angst in the short-term but there is likely to be several players considering plying their trade in annual 6-week tournaments in opposition to constant touring and the scrutiny that comes with representing a country.

The lack of preparation for the players was palpable. Australia did have two tough teams in their Group C matches but it’s unlikely to have made much of a difference which group they were placed in as, although the players selected were trying their hardest, they haven’t been given every chance to succeed. It comes as no surprise that the only players to impress in Australia’s two matches were those who at least played in the KFC Big Bash and IPL. Players who either skipped T20I’s, Big Bash matches and/or the IPL looked rusty but this is only a symptom of a wider problem. Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke have regularly skipped T20I’s to rest from punishing schedules so not only do they not have form, their tactics seem somewhat agricultural. Australia as a whole has not moved on from the slog-fest mindset of T20’s early days whereas the game and players from other countries have evolved. It would seem to be a matter of experience in the format; the only way to improve tactics is to get time on the park. The same players who lack T20 experience and form are the same players engaging in unedifying, last-over-style slogs after being bogged-down.

The bowling is similarly affected; the best T20 bowlers have several clever slow-ball variations. Jerome Taylor showed the Australian batsmen plenty in his great spell against them. The Aussie bowlers showed their lack of experience in the format by serving up loose deliveries when batsmen came at them and were guilt??y of a lack of innovation. Rather than trying to outfox batsmen, the Aussie bowlers, in response to being hit for 6, would charge in and look on ?incredulously as their next deliveries went the journey too. Again, the lack of evolved tactics is laid bare.

The bigger issue is selection. The players themselves, world-class in other forms and ultimately responsible for their own play, cannot be blamed entirely if they’re not being played at the highest level. Conversely, those doing well in the format would surely be frustrated by the lack of opportunities for Australia. A quick look at the top-20 run-scorers for the KFC Big Bash, one notices only three batsmen (David Warner, David Hussey and James Hopes) who saw game-time for Australia in England. They also played for IPL teams. Unsurprisingly, those same three also showed glimpses of the form and tactics required to succeed in the format. The other batsmen who played against both the West Indies and Sri Lanka were not amongst the top performers for their states (when they actually fronted for them) and were not amongst the top scorers for their IPL teams when selected. This is particularly so with Michael Clarke and Ricky Ponting.

The most palpably missing name from the squad was Brad Hodge. He was in the top 5 run-scorers in T20 for both Victoria and the Kolkata Knight Riders, was amongst the top players last season for both teams as well as his English county side and is widely regarded as one of the most consistent T20 players in the game. How did a player like this miss out on selection at all let alone when Symonds was sent home? Instead, Cameron White, another well-credentialled T20 player with plenty of runs in England, is nursing some serious jetlag after being flown to England for 4 days only to miss out on selection for both matches. The Symonds fiasco would surely have de-stabilised the plans of the Australian team but these sorts of selections are baffling at best. Confusing messages abound for players such as Callum Ferguson who, it appeared, were building nicely towards this tournament with consistent performances for Australia and South Australia in T20’s and one-day matches, only to miss out on selection entirely. Their performances, come selection time, appear to have counted for little.

Aside from selection of players, the batting-order was a source of confusion. In all the warm-ups, Brad Haddin, the most in-form limited-overs players in the team, opened the batting, where he’s had most of his success in the past year. On match day, he was pushed down the order. Ricky Ponting, lacking experience and form in T20, batted at 3 for both matches whilst the Hussey brothers, with both form and experience in T20’s, were relegated to 6 and 7 where they did what they could with the very few overs they had to work with.

More questionable is the selection of the bowlers. The core Australian bowling attack comprised Brett Lee, Mitchell Johnson, Shane Watson and Nathan Bracken. Only Bracken played in the KFC Big Bash, the rest a veritable clown-car of either long-term injured or lack of match time for state, country or IPL team, their blown-out economy rates testimony to this. Australia was showing glimpses of their likely squad by picking well-performed T20 specialists in various T20I’s over the past year only to completely discard them for this tournament. Dirk Nannes, particularly aggrieved and having been amongst the top bowlers for Delhi after a great season with Victoria, signed on for team Holland who, unlike Australia, managed to beat someone. The back-up bowlers were Ben Hilfenhous and Peter Siddle. Both barely rate a mention amongst the best T20 bowlers in the game, Siddle himself playing no games for Victoria nor an IPL club. What was the basis for their selection?

Spin bowlers weren’t left out of the selection maelstrom. Australia only took one spinner, Nathan Hauritz, who didn’t play for NSW in any T20 matches and didn’t play for an IPL team. Other teams have selected spinners who bowl with clever variation rather than trying to keep it tight. These types of bowlers have proven far more useful against batsmen trying to hit them out of the ground. Australia is yet to catch on so a bowler with T20 form for his state, Jason Krezja, missed out.

In trying to read the actions of the Australian selectors, the evidence points strongly towards getting the current squad some game-time in England before the up-coming Ashes series. The similarities between the current squad and the likely Ashes squad is testimony to this. If this is the case, all the talk after Australia’s semi-final exit from the last T20 World Cup is rendered meaningless. That such a cricketing powerhouse would appear to take such a large-scale tournament so lightly is somewhat insulting to all the other teams who do take it seriously. If you remove the pride of playing for one’s country by treating a tournament such as the T20 World Championship as little more than preparation for another series, monetary compensation from player-to-player becomes important facet in the decision between club and country. Australia needs to start taking T20 seriously and quickly.