The cricket media used to be the most reliable section of journalism. There was little hysteria with extreme results, good or bad for the local team, and the analysis of the game was generally thoughtful and reserved. In the age of social media and parts of the media more interested in clickbait than actual commentary on the game, that kind of composure is becoming a thing of the past. Instead we have a multitude of former international cricketers who are more interested in having their voice heard above everyone else’s, and don’t mind too much if what they say today completely contradicts what they said yesterday, or what they will say tomorrow. I bring this up after the barrage of opinion that has come in the last three days, firstly over Australia’s unfortunate but not unexpected capitulation to England in their T20 World Cup clash, but also with India falling similarly to New Zealand and now in danger themselves of missing out on the semi-finals of the tournament. So as a result, what I can offer you today is my own opinion on what has transgressed over the past week or so, and see if I can outshout those ex-Test cricketers who seem to love to create drama, on today’s episode of The Casual Mankadder, right here on Thoughts From the Metal Cavern.
It has been an interesting few days in international cricket, and depending who you are listening to and on what day, Australia’s World Cup campaign has either been a success or a complete disaster. Last Thursday you might have been led to believe that Australia was on track for a famous victory in this World Cup, and the likely victory over England was about to prove that. Come the following day and it was obvious that Australia was a shot duck, likely to miss the finals and all because the team needed to be completely revamped from the combination that had lost that day... even though they had won their first two matches. As hard as it must have been for Australians, worse was to follow for India, who having already allowed their main rivals Pakistan to flog them by 10 wickets, then managed to lose again to NZ, this time by 8 wickets. And as with Australia, the knives were out, with so many ex-players who had turned themselves into experts simply by leaving the game and moving to a commentary box now suggesting mass changes for the rest of the tournament.
The main thing about this – Australia and India supposedly struggling – is this. T20 cricket, from the outset, has been a gamble, a toss up. Any team can defeat another team on the day. It is the format where upset results come far quicker and more prolifically than any other form of the game. If there is a distinct advantage of, say, batting second in a tournament, then the toss of the coin can be the deciding factor rather than the skill of the two teams on show. If all aspects appear equal, then it is pressure that can stall an innings, proving to be vital in the outcome of the match.
The West Indies squad contains players such as Gayle, Bravo, Russell, Pollard, Narine, all players who are the T20 mercenaries of the world, travelling around to all of the T20 domestic competitions, and have played more T20 cricket than any other players in the history of the format. And yet, the Windies so far have barely fired a shot in anger and are no guarantee to make the semi-finals. India host the world biggest annual T20 domestic tournament, the IPL, and has the cream of international stars playing in it as well, which as a result should mean that Indian players have the best possible upbringing in the T20 game, and indeed are feted by their board and their commentators alike as such. All of their young domestic players are raised in this tournament, a place where they can stake their claim to further international honours. And yet, India has now lost twice – to very good opposition it must be said - and are now also in danger of missing out on the semi-final stage.
What this has shown again is that T20 cricket is a fickle game. Australia defeated SA and SL comfortably, and in the days leading up to their clash with England the media talk was all about the great match that was to come, and could Australia upset one of the tournament favourites. When it comes to pass that they don’t and instead get summarily thrashed by a team that has proven to be far superior to Australia in both white ball formats over the past four years, its panic stations, and suddenly massive changes are needed, especially from our good mate Shane Warne.
Far be it for me to try and lock horns with the experts of the game such as Shane Warne and Michael Clarke. For guys who at different times were left out of the Australian team and were very vocal (then and now) about the injustice of it all, the notion that Steve Smith should not be chosen in Australia’s T20 XI still seems a little far fetched. Six months ago, if it had been suggested that Smith would have been left at home with an eye to playing the longer formats of the game and prepare for an Ashes summer, I would have been in favour of that, given the inconsequential draw of T20 cricket for most cricket lovers and a desire to ensure we can retain the Ashes this summer. But with Smith in this squad, the idea that he should be left out of the team doesn’t stack up. No matter what these two giants of the game believe is Smith’s lack of strike rate and big hitting in the T20 game, suggesting he should be replaced – by anyone – is ludicrous. Indeed, I believe it can be answered by your thoughts on this one simple question: Who would you pick in your best Australia team – Steve Smith or Mitch Marsh? Or Steve Smith and Marcus Stoinis? In any situation, if you are betting on either Marsh or Stoinis to be more effective with bat in hand, then the tournament is already as good as over. We all know Warne has a penchant of, when constantly asked for his opinion, choosing teams that suddenly have two or three players in it that no one else in the country is thinking about. It’s his way, and like all of us armchair selectors, he has the comfort of knowing that his thoughts never actually have to be tested in the real world. Heaven help us if he ever really did become a selector. Imagine the mayhem that would ensue.
In the international version of T20 cricket, it appears from the outside that the best teams have a team plan, one that is followed no matter who is actually picked in the squad. England have done this best in recent years. Their plan has been to attack from the outset. If that works, great, keep going. If it doesn’t.... well, keep attacking and see what happens. They pick their teams based on this philosophy, leaning heavily on aggressive batting led by Buttler, Roy, Malan, Bairstow, Morgan, Livingston, and allrounders Woakes, Ali and Jordan. Billings can’t even get into the XI, while in this tournament they are even with Root and Stokes and Archer who would probably only have made this squad stronger. The bowling attack is balanced between pace and spin, and there are lots of options if something goes berserk.
Australia doesn’t have players like England, and so any effort to play the same way, as Warne suggests Australia must do, to me is uninformed. You have to play to a plan that works for the players you have in your team. And at the moment that is compromised, because teams have worked out Australia’s batsmen. Four of the top six have been in the ODI and T20 top six for Australia since before the 2015 ODI World Cup. That’s almost 7 years ago. Bowling at a length and cutting into Finch’s pads has him out LBW or bowled almost every time. Bowling around the wicket and cramping warner has stopped his ability to score runs (thanks Stuart Broad). The constant change of mind by selectors and coaches and captains as to how best use his ability has seen him only show his true depth on stagnated occasions. And keeping the ball a foot outside off stump keeps Smith at best at a run a ball, which opposition teams are happy to do until he gets himself out in frustration. Added to this is the rotation of so many players in the other batting positions in the top six, such that no one really knows if they are going to be able to secure their position like the other four mentioned previously – players like Stoinis and Marsh and Carey and Wade and McDermott and Henriques and Head and Turner – and there is a real confusion as to just how the team should play its batting. England currently have no such problems. They know their role and execute it. The same with the bowling. Australia’s big three in Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood rarely play together in T20I because it is often these matches where they get their rotation rest breaks in the season. As such, other bowlers like Kane Richardson and Jhye Richardson have gotten their chance and have done well, but now that the big three are together, they sit on the sidelines. And though both Starc and Cummins are capable of big hitting at the end, they are really specialist bowlers, and with Australia playing four specialist bowlers on most occasions while other teams are able to boast more substantial all-rounders with bat and bowl, it does leave Australia’s ability to bat through the order compromised.
Before this tournament started I didn’t think Australia would reach the semi-finals. Despite all the grief and moaning since the defeat to England, Australia now only has to win its final two games to do so, against the Windies and Bangladesh. They have lost to both nations in recent times - and a lot - but it was with a half strength side that didn’t truly reflect this squad. Given the performances of the West Indies so far, and the fact that Bangladesh’s best player Shakib Ul Hasan is now out of the rest of the tournament with injury, and that South Africa still has to face England themselves, then really, from this point, if Australia DOESN’T make the semi-finals, it will have no one but itself to blame for it.
