Sad But True - Current Australian Cricket Jokes

What do you call a world-class Australian cricketer?
Retired.

What do you call an Australian who can hold a catch? 
A fisherman.

Why can no-one drink wine in Australia at the moment? 
They haven't got any openers .

What is the difference between Cinderella and the Aussies? 
Cinderella knew when to leave the ball.

What does an Australian batsman who is playing in The Ashes have in common with Michael Jackson? 
They both wore gloves for no apparent reason.

Who spends the most time on the crease of anyone on the Australian cricket team? 
The woman who irons their cricket whites.

What's the height of optimism? 
An Aussie batsman putting on sunscreen.

What do you call a cricket field full of Australians ? 
A vacant lot.

What's the difference between an Aussie batsman and a Formula 1 car?
Nothing! If you blink you'll miss them both

What's the difference between Michael Clarke and a funeral director? 
A funeral director doesn't keep losing the ashes

The Australian bobsleigh team have asked the Aussie cricket team for a meeting. 
They want to ask their advice about going downhill so fast!

What do you call an Aussie with a bottle of Champagne? 
A waiter.


Sadly true, but a temporary malfunction...

Agar's Innings For the Ages

The amazing game that is Test Cricket raised its beautiful head to the heavens today to show once again that it is the one form of the game that can provide any result, and showcase every aspect of the great game. The Test itself over the two days has been marvellous entertainment, but what a day the second day was, dominated by the 19 year old wunderkind Ashton Agar.

A day that started with Australia just behind the eight-ball began serenely, with both Steve Smith and Phil Hughes seeing off the first half hour with aplomb. Neither looked troubled against the opening assault from Anderson and Finn. While Anderson worked furiously on the ball, looking to produce anything he could from it, Finn was replaced by Swann. Smith moved comfortably to another Test half century, and at 4/108 it looked as though a good session was in store for the Australians.
And then suddenly, the ball began to reverse swing awkwardly from Anderson, and Swann began to get some unnerving turn. After playing himself in, Smith went to hard at a good length ball and edged behind, ending his salvo just at the time it looked as though the pair could push on. This signalled the start of an almighty collapse from the Australian team, due entirely to the magnificent bowling of James Anderson and Graham Swann.
Anderson was magnificent. He is the benchmark for world cricket at the moment when it comes to fast swing bowling. Whether the ball is new or old, he is able to get it to move through the air and always at excellent pace. He worked enormously hard on the ball for the first half hour and was finally rewarded as it began to go Irish, and then he had the Australian tail at his mercy. Siddle and Starc, who had both scored half centuries in India when Australia was in trouble, were no match here for Anderson's brilliant bowling. At the other end, a sharp turner from Swann quickly accounted for Brad Haddin, while he was all over Pattinson before finally getting an affirmative decision for LBW. These two had destroyed the Aussies solid start to the day, snaring five wickets for just nine runs, and at 9/117 and still 98 runs behind it was a very bleak outlook for the Australian team.

And then a funny thing happened. England's bowlers completely lost the plot. Ashton Agar strode to the crease, and England decided to give Phil Hughes a single and to concentrate on the number eleven. What they didn't expect was that the number eleven could bat a bit. The pressure was taken off Hughes, who was then able to try and assert himself with some positive strokes in order to get a few extra runs before the end of the innings. Agar, filled with the philosophy of his father John and his coach Darren Lehmann, played positively himself, and backed himself. He showed a good defensive technique and was not afraid to put the loose ball away.
On 6, he was subject to a huge appeal for stumping, which was referred to the third umpire. After numerous viewings the benefit was given to the batsman. England players and commentators spent the next six hours whining about this decision. If they'd concentrated more on sensible tactics, then the day may have turned out differently.

Merv's Ghost and Katich's Apparition Hover Over Trent Bridge

At the start of play of the first day of the First Test in this Ashes series between Australia and England, if you had said to an Australian supporter that at stumps, you can have bowled England out for 215, and Australia would be 4/75, then I reckon eight out of ten surveyed would have said "I'll take that". Not because Australia would be in the dominant position (though if Michael Clarke had been one of the not out batsmen, you would almost consider yourself to be on even ground), but because they would have made a positive start in bowling out the English batting line-up, and because the batting scorecard for Australia wouldn't have been completely unexpected.

England's line-up was as expected, while Australia surprised most by handing 19 year old Ashton Agar his debut with cap number 434 in front of the incumbent spinner Nathan Lyon. Agar has impressed all who have seen him, with his tall frame bowling left arm orthodox away from the right hand batsmen said to have been the tipping point in his favour. Lyon took nine wickets in his final Test appearance, and is also the orator of the team victory song. That may not be a problem in the interim, but what it will have done for Lyon's confidence if he is selected sometime in July or August is anyone's guess. His must now be a troubled mindset.

Steve Smith and Ed Cowan were both preferred to the eternally overlooked Usman Khawaja who must be beginning to wonder what he has said to be constantly in this position. Still, with Dave Warner being banished to the veldt for batting practice on the Australia A tour, "Uzzy" becomes the only back up batsman left in the squad should a place become available. It may be that his wait is almost over.

Having lost the toss, Australia's bowlers were given the first opportunity to attack, and found it abnormally difficult to bowl within a line and length. Returning keeper Brad Haddin was made to earn his increased pay, constantly diving full length both in front of slips and down leg side to try and reel in the misdirected thunderbolts from his bowlers. James Pattinson recovered best, and bowled a solid first spell which snared him the vital wicket of Alistair Cook. Mitchell Starc again appeared unable to bowl his most dangerous delivery, the in ducking yorker to the right hander, and before long had one again reverted to coming around the wicket, thus deflating every advantage he has of being a left-armer. Surely one day he will learn.

Peter Siddle, whose form has been average, and looked to be a long way back in line behind Ryan Harris and Jackson Bird, was retained by the selectors for the Test, he proceeded to bowl a first spell reminiscent of former bowlers like Chris Matthews and Glenn Trimble, as he was incapable of keeping the ball off Jonathan Trott's pads, and he was consistently punished. After four overs he was relieved, and one could only imagine how much better it would have been having either Harris or Bird backing up the opening bowlers.

However, Clarke kept his faith and swung Siddle around to the other end, where he immediately beat Joe Root for pace and length in up-Rooting his off stump. All of a sudden, there was more control, and  - by-God - swing!! he kept running in hard, still throwing in the odd boundary ball, but then almost miraculously picking up wickets. he snared Pietersen straight after lunch, and Trott to a wide ball that he played on just before drinks. Trott was furious, but what this dismissal proved again is that he is not as comfortable with the ball outside off stump. This is the line that Australia's bowlers must only deal with to Trott for the next five months if they are to curb his run scoring. It is an obvious ploy, but he was handed 40 runs on the first day through thoughtless bowling. With better directional bowling, his task will be a whole lot tougher than it was on the first day.

Siddle meanwhile was not done yet, finally getting Bell to edge one to slip, and picking up Prior with a half-tracker that he bunted to short forward point. After the most inglorious start, suddenly Siddle had five of the first six wickets to fall, and was being hailed by the commentators in all media. It is not the first time Siddle has elicited memories and comparison to another fiery Victorian, Merv Hughes. Hughes often bowled some of the most rubbish spells of bowling in Tests, but then managed to snare a vital wicket when it was most needed, often with a full toss or a half tracker or a wide delivery. His career is now often hailed as courageous and brutal, it being mired in the mists of time and with many people either too young to remember, or old enough to forgive. Siddle was the epitome of Merv Hughes today, and though his five wickets were vital for Australia again today, one can't help wondering how much luck can sometimes play in the game of cricket.

Australia's batting woes continued, not without a hint of misfortune. Shane Watson again failed, leaving open the question of his future in the team. He also reportedly has yet another strain and will likely not bowl in the second innings, which again creates concerns about his durability and place in the team. Ed Cowan, who probably owes his place in this team to his former opening partner being suspended for a month, edged his first wide delivery behind. He had spent all day going back and forth from the field, reportedly being ill. His first day will not improve how he feels, illness or not. While this was going on. Simon Katich, the opener dismissed from the Australian team because he was considered to be to old and superfluous, knocked up a simple double century in County cricket. One wonders what may have happened had he still been in this team.

Michael Clarke copped a ripper, a ball that would probably have accounted for any batsmen past or present. Jimmy Anderson does produce such pearlers, and it was (for Australia) most unfortunate that he directed this one at the captain. It visibly lifted the England team, and they would have been ecstatic and believing they could almost account for the whole innings that evening.

Steve Smith and Chris Rogers showed their mettle, seeing off the immediate threat and then looking to build a partnership. Smith especially carried on his recent good form, and appeared confident and solid. When Rogers was adjudged LBW off Anderson, coming round the wicket and angling down leg side, it felt like a 50/50 decision, and one where the batsmen did not receive the benefit of the doubt. When reviewed, Hawkeye showed it clipping the stump, which is good enough if the umpire is in the affirmative. There is no real problem with that, but you feel that perhaps the home crowd was rewarded in this instance, where the opposing team could feel aggrieved.

With stumps pulled, England would feel they have restored the order after being dismissed cheaply. Australia would feel they have let their advantage slip, but would still feel they can at least finish on parity when the first innings is completed. Smith and Hughes have been touted as the future of Australia's batting for three or four years. Tonight they have the opportunity to prove why. Brad Haddin will be itching to impress with the bat on his return to the team. The bowlers did well with the bat in India, and they will probably have to do so again here. It all adds up to another fascinating day's play coming up on Day 2, with both team's looking to push home an advantage.

The Ashes: Can Australia Spring An Upset?

With all of the preliminaries over, the time has come to see if this Australian cricket squad can pull themselves together from all of the distractions of the past month, and put their best foot forward in the quest to wrest the Ashes back from the Old Enemy.

Following an average Champions Trophy campaign, another brain explosion from David Warner, the coach being held responsible for all of the negativity surrounding the squad and being sacked as a response, the captain and best batsman being injured on arrival in England and not playing for three weeks, a new coach being appointed, the captain giving up his role as a selector, and the new coach taking on the majority of media responsibilities, one could be forgiven for wondering if the campaign was over before it even started. But the last two weeks has seen a change which seen all of the negativity seep away and a very businesslike attitude come in to replace it.
With Darren Lehmann dominating the cameras and news conferences with his straight forward and no nonsense attitude, the media has had nothing untoward to report. Michael Clarke has relinquished all of this part of his role, and has been allowed to concentrate on his game, his fitness and his team, which from the outside seems to be benefitting everyone.
As to the squad itself, the performances have been mixed. The batsmen have been met with half-baked 2nd XI county bowling attacks on flat decks, meaning that while the majority of them have made some runs, those runs have been just a little too easy to ensure they have had a real tough lead-up to the series. No doubt Shane Watson, Chris Rogers, Phil Hughes and Clarke will have enjoyed getting amongst the runs, hopefully they will all be fully aware that the attack and pitches they are about to face will be like chalk and cheese in comparison. On the flipside, the bowlers have faced bowling to a few decent batsmen on decks with nothing in them for their benefit, which meant the first four in the order found the going easy, but once they had been prised out the tail fell alarmingly quickly.

So what will Australia go in with for this 1st Test? And can those who are selected proved the English media and "experts" wrong in their belief the series will be won 5-0 by the hosts?

Lehmann has anointed Watson and Rogers as the openers for the Test, which to me is the best combination. Rogers may only have one Test behind him, but he has six consecutive seasons - three in Australia and three in England - of averaging over 50 with the bat. His experience is exactly what the team needs at the top of the order. My view of Shane Watson has been well voiced over the past two seasons or more. His century in the last warm-up game was lauded by those who saw it, but against the puff-pastry attack he faced it has answered no questions of his immediate future. This truly must be his final series if he is unable to dominate at the top of the order. He must score centuries if he is to survive, and if Australia is to win. Surely he can't need any more motivation. These two must find a way to see off the threat of James Anderson, to stop him from scything his way into the middle order in the first hour of the innings. Whoever is chosen from Stuart Broad, Steven Finn and Tim Bresnan will also be dangerous, but it is Anderson who remains the key with the new ball. Our openers need to defuse him, before then setting off on big scores themselves.

Questions remain on who will fill the final four batting positions in the team, and in what order. Clarke is the only one assured of his spot, and as he has batted at four in the two warm-up games, one can only hope he will also fill that position in the Test. I am still of the opinion, perhaps the only on in the world I guess, that he should be batting at number three. My basis for this is that he is not only the best batsman in our team, but upon the answer to the following question - if you were England, who is the last person you would want to see coming out to bat at number three? Do you think England fear Phil Hughes at three? Or Ed Cowan? Or David Warner? Or Usman Khawaja? No chance. Clarke striding out at three makes a bold statement, and would absolutely make England's job immediately more difficult. Some people question my thoughts, suggesting that Steve Waugh rarely batted at three for Australia, even when he was probably the most dominating batsmen in his era. The folly of that is this - his team was winning Tests more than any team, apart from the Windies in the 1980's, in the history of the game. If Steve Waugh was playing now in this team in this era, he would be batting at three, and he would be loving it. We know Clarke will not bat at three, and may not even bat at four, but I think it is an opportunity missed.

Phil Hughes would appear to have done enough to retain his spot with a clutter of fifties in the warm up games. Despite technical flaws and constant pressure on him because of these perceived weaknesses, it is obvious he has the talent to succeed. I really hope he can do so. I do think that I'll be loading up at TomWaterhouse.com.au on him being dismissed at least 6 times caught behind off Anderson however.
Of the four remaining batsmen in the squad, their chances of selection will depend on what the batting order is going to end up as. If Clarke bats at four and Hughes at five, then that leaves #3 and #6 up for grabs, but if Hughes bats at three, then #5 and #6 are the spots available. The other question that needs to be asked is whether or not Warner will be considered after his suspension, and no cricket for the past month. Both Lehmann and Clarke have suggested that he has been doing all the work in the nets and that he will be 'right to go if selected', a reasonably broad hint that they want to pick him. Both have also suggested that the Australians need to be aggressive with the bat, which not only plays further into Warner's hands, but also counts against both Cowan and Khawaja. The wild card is Steve Smith, who was not originally chosen in the squad, but came in after good performances in the Australia A tour. His efforts in the last of the warm up games also boded well. What also shouldn't be forgotten was his excellent performances in the final two Tests in India, where he played better than most other batsmen and showed he has learned to adapt to the conditions available.
Whoever the selectors choose, the two to miss out will be devastated and can possibly count themselves unfortunate. The fact that Cowan has really failed to make a big score with plenty of opportunities as well as in both warm up games here, and that Khawaja only played the first warm up game, leaves me to believe that these will be the two who miss out, leaving Warner to bat at three and Smith to bat at six. I would not be terribly upset if this was to occur. But you have to wonder when Khawaja is going to get his chance, and given an extended run to prove he can make it at this level.

Brad Haddin will take the gloves and bat at seven. He was excellent on the last Ashes tour and has done well so far in his return as the number one gloveman. His experience and leadership will fill a void that was obvious in India, and hopefully will keep the team level-headed on and off the field.

The bowlers will face plenty of pressure in their attempts to dismiss the England team cheaply. We can only hope that they have been watching footage of the New Zealand bowlers efforts against their batsmen both in New Zealand in February and in England in May. Off-stump going away to Cook, up and in to Root, a foot outside off stump to Trott and nothing anywhere near his legs, off stump drifting away to Bell. If I can see these things just from watching the games, let's hope our 30-odd people in team management have also noticed them.

James Pattinson and Mitchell Starc will be the first choice bowlers, though Starc must really come to the party here. At his best, with the ball swinging in to right handers at 145kph he is invaluable. Yet he has been too inconsistent in his Test career so far, and he needs to take on responsibility for ensuring he is on his game. He is a key against Trott, Bell and Pietersen. Pattinson, apart from not finishing his homework, was excellent in India, and he shapes as a major player for the Australians.
Peter Siddle has been the senior bowler for the team for the past two seasons, but he really seems to be out of contention. he did not play in the final warm up game, he has struggled for rhythm and penetration in England, and almost all the other options appear to be in front of him. If he is selected, it will be on trust rather than form, which could be a dangerous thing.
The two who appear the most likely contenders for the final pace spot are Ryan Harris and Jackson Bird. Harris is the firebrand, bowling his beautiful in duckers and away swingers at pace, always hurrying the batsmen. his body has been his only letdown, but he appears fit and healthy to start here. While he is unlikely to play all five Tests, his back up should surely be Bird, whose McGrath-like height, length and movement seem to make him the perfect bowler for English conditions. he probably won't play the 1st Test, but he will definitely have an impact on this series at some stage.
Nathan Lyon will line-up as spinner after his Test best figures in the final Test in India, but he will continue to be under pressure for his position in the team. He was given a good long bowl in the first warm up game in unhelpful conditions, so he should be right to go. How he attacks Pietersen especially will determine how much influence he has on the series. While he needs to be attacking, he also needs to ensure he isn't bleeding easy runs. His will be an interesting series to follow. What has been interesting is the continued improvement of the impressive teenager Ashton Agar, who not only bowls left arm orthodox from a big height with good loop and turn, he also manages a bat better than most. It may be that he doesn't get a game on this tour, but by being around the team, and doing a lot of net bowling, he can only improve, and it would not be a surprise to see him make a big impression in the next Australian summer. However, if indeed he was thrown into this series, I think he would surprise a lot of people.

So, the stage is set, and the battle is about to begin. Whatever happens we can only hope that Australia stands up and puts their best foot forward, and acquit themselves to the best of their ability. England are cocky and confident - perhaps rightly so - but if the Aussies can pull together and play to a plan, then there is no reason why they can't spring a surprise. No one expected England to win in 2005. Eight years later, and perhaps the tables can be turned.

20 Years Ago Today... Bowled Warnie!!

Can you believe that it was twenty years ago today that this ball was bowled? I can't.

I was living in our tiny one bedroom flat in Kiama at the time, having been married for just over three months, working in the nursery weown in the Terrace Houses. Staying up until 3.00am every night to watch the cricket from England.

I still remember watching it as it happened. It was remarkable. I'd watched Michael Slater make his Test debut the previous night, and Mark Taylor score a century, and then the rest of the batting falter.

This was a great moment in cricket history. And you can never get tired of watching it.

Watson Gifted Another Chance in Ashes Squad

Ashes squad Michael Clarke (capt), Brad Haddin (vice-capt, wk), David Warner, Ed Cowan, Phillip Hughes, Shane Watson, Usman Khawaja, Chris Rogers, Matthew Wade (wk), James Faulkner, Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle, James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon, Jackson Bird. 

Australia A squad Brad Haddin (capt), Steven Smith (vice-capt), Ashton Agar, Jackson Bird, Alex Doolan, Ryan Harris, Moises Henriques, Usman Khawaja, Nathan Lyon, Nic Maddinson, James Pattinson, Chadd Sayers, Peter Siddle, Jordan Silk.

So, the squad for the Ashes tour to England has been chosen, and while most of the squad was predictable, there were a couple of surprises thrown in there - some good and some bad.
The most pertinent point to ask of all of this is - can this team win back the Ashes from England?

Chairman of the National Selection Panel (NSP) John Inverarity made the point that, although only 16 players have been chosen in the squad, this can be added to at any time during the tour at the discretion of the NSP. It will be intersting to see if that occurs. Before the Test series begins, there is the Champions Trophy ODI junket to be played, where a different squad will be in attendance, and there is also a A Tour taking place in the month leading up to the 1st Test, where no doubt any scintillating performances will put those players firmly in the selector's minds.

Australia's strength is its bowling attack, and the team will be relying on them to be able to bowl England out twice in each of the five Tests if they are to be any chance of winning the series. James Pattinson, Mitch Starc and Peter Siddle have been retained from the tour of India, while Jackson Bird, who was repatriated from that tour very early on with back trouble, has also been given another chance. The three afore mentioned bowlers toiled hard in India for the rewards they reaped, and will find the wickets in England much more conducive and inviting. Bird, who impressed in his two Tests in Mebourne and Sydney, will also be well suited to the seam friendly wickets.
The return to fitness of Ryan Harris is timely and fortunate. If not for his fragile body he would have spearheaded this Australian attack for the last two years. He could well be the wild card for the Australians, even if he doesn't play every Test. Pick and choose the right wickets and he could be invaluable.
James Faulkner's selection owes much to his form throughout the Australian summer, and having not been on the Indian tour. His figures with ball and bat were exceptional, and one suspects he will also enjoy bowling in England. It's hard to see him getting a game unless injuries occur... but in recent years, that has been the norm rather than the exception.

It's hard to work out where the NSP has gone with Mitchell Johnson. This time last year he was long odds to ever play Test cricket again. Then the NSP surprsingly chose him during the summer, during which he bowled as well as he ever has for Australia. He then went to India, where most would have expected him to be one of the leading bowlers, given his aggression and pace are things that Indian batsmen do not like. However, he sat on the sidelines, was then suspended for a match for not doing his homework, and then came in for the final Test where his bowling was ineffective and he made a pair with the bat. Now he is not in the best half a dozen fast bowlers in Australia. Has he been mis-managed? Has he been made a scapegoat? Has he just been lax and has fittingly not been chosen? I'm not sure. On the last Ashes tour he under-performed and the English crowd gave it to him all winter. Perhaps this was taken into account in leaving him home.

The wicket keeping dramas have been resolved in the interim, with Brad Haddin not only being named as vice captain, but as first choice keeper on tour. Matthew Wade's keeping was diabolical in India in difficult conditions, and wasn't much better in Australia prior to that. He still has the chance to be Australia's long term keeper, but he will need to work hard to claim it.
In regards to Haddin's re-elevation to the top job, it's a short term gig, and safe bet. Haddin has a reasonable record against England, and performed well on the last tour of England in 2009. He offers leadership qualities that no other current member of Australia's elite can offer. He is cool under pressure, and always looking to exploit any weaknesses in the opposition. It may look like a backwards step, but in reality it gives the selection panel numerous options. In 12 months time, not only will Haddin be likely to be thinking of calling it quits himself, it will have given not only Wade, but contenders such as Tim Paine, Chris Hartley and Peter Nevill another summer in which to push their claims to be the heir apparent to the Test gloves. Wade will probably retain his position in the one day squad, which will keep him around the national group so that he won't feel completely abandoned.

Australia's batting is where this series will be won or lost. Not since the days of 1985, with the rebel tour to South Africa, or 1978, in the heart of the World Series Cricket days, has the strength of the Australia Test batting been so shaky, or the depth of batting in Sheffield Shield cricket been so low. The loss of Ponting and Hussey in such a short space of time has left an enormous hole, and one that will not be filled easily or quickly.
The selection of Chris Rogers is to be applauded. He alone has consistently made runs each summer, as well as doing even better in the County Championship for a number of years. His experience in those conditions will be vital, and he will hopefully be able to solve Australia's problem at number three, assuming that the opening pair of Warner and Cowan will not be broken up, at least initially.
None of Warner, Cowan or Phil Hughes are assured of their spot in the Test side. All have had numerous opportunities to really nail down their position in the side, but have not done enough with them. Only the lack of pressure from players back in the Shield competition has saved their spot - so far. It looms as a big tour for all three. They could come home entrenched in the team, or out of it for good.

I'm going to go down this path once again, because I think that this continues to be a disgrace, a situation where if this case went to court, there would be an uproar.
Shane Watson has been chosen once again to tour, and no doubt be the second person chosen in the Test side. How does this continune to happen? What mystical hold does this person have on all of those on the NSP to continue to select him?
In the last two years, Watson has played 14 Test matches. He has scored 627 runs at a paltry average of 24.11. And yet he is still chosen as a Test batsman. Forget about the guys he is keeping out of the team NOW with an average like that. Hell, Jamie Siddons and Stuart Law could probably average more than that NOW let alone in their prime!
In the series in India, Watson played the first two Tests, before he was one of four players suspended for a Test match for not doing his homework. He then flew immediately home to Sydney, where he told the media he would have to seriously consider his future at the elite level. Seven days later, he was captaining the Test team when Michael Clarke failed to play with a bad back. Then, just last week, he asked to be relieved of the vic captaincy, to concentrate on his own game.
In those three Tests in India, Watson scored just 99 runs at an average of 16.50, with a highest score of 28. His average only bettered Glenn Maxwell and Mitchell Johnson in the Test series for Australia.
On the other hand, Steve Smith was a surprise choice for the Indian tour, and didn't look like getting a game until the four players, of which Shane Watson was one, were suspended. He came in for the 3rd Test, and showed great maturity, patience and steel. His 92 in the first innings was vital in getting Australia to a defendable total, before he was bowled by a beauty in the second innings for 5. He was retained for the 4th Test with Michael Clarke injured, where he scored 46 and 18 in another losing effort. His two Tests produced 161 runs at 40.25, second on the Test averages for Australia and fourth in the aggregates, even though he only played two of the four Tests.
Now, most of us would believe that Smith's batting technique could let him down in England. But surely, after putting in his all for those two Tests in India, when almost everyone else around him (except the bowlers) failed with the bat, he DESERVED the opportunity to tour and have the chance? On all of the figures put here before you, how can the NSP say with a straight face that Watson deserves to play in front of Smith? I'm sorry, but if one more person puts that "oh, but he is the most talented cricketer" crap in front of me one more time, I think I'm going to clock someone. I'll repeat what I've said on countless occasions before - any other cricketer in the world averaging 24 over two years would be lucky to be playing for their first class team, let alone their Test team. It is a joke, and a major travesty of justice for Steve Smith to be in the A squad instead of the Test squad. When did form stop being the major selection criteria for our team? And don't start trying to use form in ODI cricket as a reason for selection in the Test team - that's why Xavier Doherty was taken to India instead of Steve O'Keefe, and look how that ended up.
Everyone will hope Watson scores a chaff bag full of runs in England and wins us the series. No doubt if he does, I will be lambasted for my stance and ridiculed for it. My opinion won't change. He has had a golden run, and he would have to do something like winning the Ashes single handed in order to pay back the number of opportunities he has had in front of more deserving players. But if he does not succeed, then the fault will lay at the feet of the NSP, and they will have to pay the consequences.

Nathan Lyon is the only spinner chosen, which is sensible given that it would be unlikely that either pitch conditions or Australian tactics will require two being selected in the same match. Lyon will again need to step up and do a job on this tour, or his days could still be numbered.  Young prodigy Ashton Agar has impressed all who have seen him, while the impending citizenship of Fawad Ahmed is exciting all of those people who long for the return of a leg spinner to the Australian ranks. Their story may come next Australian summer. It will be up to Lyon this winter to keep pushing his case forward.

England's stagnant tour of New Zealand has raised Australian hopes of a surprise victory in the Ashes, though England will be a superior team on their own wickets and with the likely return of Graham Swann and Stuart Broad to the team. For the first time since 1989, Australia go into an Ashes battle as the underdogs, and rightly so. Perhaps though, this may be advantageous if the home team takes them too lightly, and the Australians can get a good start to the series. If nothing else, Wednesday July 10 is already stamped and embossed in gold on the calendar, and anticipation for the series is already at maximum levels.

Ashes to Ashes - Where to From Here

Cricket of the modern age continues to show that the very best teams can win at home and away, while the middle of the road teams will most likely, under most circumstances, be infinitely superior in their own backyard, but are unable to penetrate when playing away from home.
South Africa battled at every turn in Australia, batted for the last day and half to salvage a draw in Adelaide against the odds before winning in Perth to claim a series victory. They have since wiped the floor with New Zealand and Pakistan at home, and are firmly ensconced as the best Test team in the world.
England had a magnificent series victory in India before Xmas, based on an excellently balanced bowling attack, and the tenaciousness and determination of their batting lineup to show both patience and attack at the correct moments. One can only wonder if they have taken New Zealand a bit easy given recent results on their tour to the shaky isles. While not facing anywhere near the same calamity as Australia did on their tour of India, there is no doubt that the New Zealand tour will be a real wake up for the Poms leading into their next eight months of cricket, the majority of which is in battle to retain the Ashes.
New Zealand showed their own fight. Having been humiliated in the Test series in South Africa, they fought long and hard on their return home to almost snatch an unlikely series victory in the final Test of their series with England.
Australia, though losing to South Africa at home, was able to win three consecutive Tests against Sri Lanka, though the weakened Sri Lankan team did put up a fight to some degree. This series win tended to paint the Australian team in a better light than they perhaps deserved, and one that maybe gave the folly of hope for their tour of India.

Is this a veiled effort on my part to suggest that Australian cricket is not as badly off as a 4-0 whitewash in India would appear to prove? Yes and no. Since Bill Lawry's team won in India in 1969, only one Australian team has won a series in India. One. That was the tour in 2004, with a bowling line up of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz and Warne provided the impetus, and the batting including Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Lehmann, Katich, Gilchrist and a debuting Michael Clarke - all of whom were magnificent players of spin bowling - tamed the locals on their own pitches. It is a team that Australia may never be able to field again in those conditions. Is it any wonder we were defeated so convincingly on this tour, given the state of the current Test team?
I mentioned in my previous blog post that, in the first two Tests, the differences between the two teams was perhaps in just two partnerships. In some ways, the same could be said for the final two Tests. The 3rd Test was mired in the Homework Affair, which probably cruelled any chance Australia had of getting into the series. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the whole affair are from whatever side you want to take, the point was that it deprived the Australian team of its most effective bowler in James Pattinson, and the chance for Usman Khawaja to come in and make an impact on the series. No matter that Steve Smith made a good impression with the bat, as did Mitch Starc with his 99. The point was that Australia's best team for that moment in time could not be, and was not, chosen, and the loss of that Test with just three overs remaining showed that it could possibly have been a contest with the right team chosen. Further points could be made of the chosen 4th Test team, and the path that Test took. However, the loss of Clarke and Starc for that match left gaping holes that could not be covered, and the whitewash was completed.
Indian cricket would believe that they are on the rise again, just a few months after being beaten by England on their own pitches. They may have some point. Laxman, Dravid and Sehwag have gone, with a lacklustre Tendulkar surely not far behind them. They have found in Vijay, Pujara, Kohli, Rahane and Dhawan a young batting lineup that has shown that it certainly has talent. The test (no pun intended) for this team now is to see if it can perform and compete outside of Indian conditions. Then we will know just how much India has to look forward to in the future.

For Australia, its future in Test cricket now lies in back-to-back Ashes series, something that has been poorly planned by the administrators but must now be attacked with fervour. Will the debacle of India prove to be the start of a "new era", or the capitulation of the unhappily administered remnants of the Argus Report? There was winners and losers both on the Indian tour, and for those that did not tour, and both sides are likely to see the outcome of this.
Usman Khawaja probably thinks that he may as well go and take out New Zealand citizenship, because he was obviously unwanted by the current hierarchy in Australian cricket. He was the only person on tour who failed to crack it for a Test (apart from Jackson Bird, who was sent home with back trouble), he has played only two first class innings in four months, both in the one lead-up game before the 1st Test in India. If nothing else can come of it, his batting reputation has not been tarnished in India, as he was not given the chance to show it.
Steve Smith proved me wrong (not such a tough ask) by playing excellently in his two Tests, averaging 40 and making great use of his feet against the Indians spinners. Though to me his technique looks like it could be torn apart by the English seamers in their conditions, it would be very unfair not to at least give him a crack at the old enemy, given he was the only batsman apart from Clarke who looked at ease against the Indian attack.
The tactics of picking allrounders instead of specialists failed dismally, long before the final Test, when it continued to be used. Australia managed to get away with it in Sydney against a depleted Sri Lankan team, but never looked a chance of doing so against India. Moises Henriques batted superbly on debut, but was unable to capitalise on this in his next two Tests. His bowling was steady but unthreatening on Indian wickets. Glenn Maxwell did nothing to disprove the idea that he is anything but a slogger with the bat, and while he picked up seven wickets with the ball he hasn't shown that he can be a frontline spinner at this point either.
The fast bowlers were completely taken out of the reckoning by the pitches put up, which was not a surprise. At times Pattinson, Siddle and Starc bowled with some venom, but overall they were made to look pedestrian on flat dusty wickets, at times through their own ineffectiveness to bowl line and length, or to reverse swing the ball.

The Test squad for the Ashes will be announced shortly, and faces a number of major problems. The major one is this - there are simply no batsmen in Australia who demand selection in front of those already chosen in the Test team. That is, apart from Victoria's Chris Rogers, who will be 36 years old when the Ashes begins, and five years after his only Test for Australia.
Only eleven batsman averaged over 40 in the Sheffield Shield this season. Of those, Andrew McDonald played two games before losing the season to injury (and given the 'search' for allrounders, he must be kicking himself), Jason Krezja averaged 80 but could only manage four games as a spinner, two were wicket-keepers (Matthew Wade and Brad Haddin), and two were end of season debutants (Daniel Hughes and Jordan Silk). The other were Henriques, Ricky Ponting, Phil Hughes, Alex Doolan and Chris Rogers.

Calling for the reinstatement of Ponting and Hussey is a backwards step that would solve nothing. Ponting was dismantled by the South African attack this summer, and he was smart enough to see that his time had come. Hundreds against Shield attacks doesn't disguise the failing eyes and shallow footwork. Hussey was still in good touch, but his heart is obviously not in the whole '100% required' any more, which would only damage his reputation. his was also a smart exit. Australia needs to make forward steps with the next generation, and though it might be a painful birth, if the right players can be found, nurtured and given as many chances as Shane Watson has had, then maybe we will be in good hands.

The next generation of batsman obviously still need another 12 months, because even though scoring runs on Shield wickets this season was obviously tough, someone needed to put their hand up if they wanted a crack at the Test team. Rob Quiney got two Tests against South Africa, but only averaged 26 in seven Shield games this season.  Alex Doolan averaged 42 in the Shield this season, but his career 1st class average of a tick under 38 with only five centuries is not the figures that should be making selectors excited yet. Joe Burns averaged 32 this season, and though his career average of 41 is lower than what they would like, he is more likely to be spoken of in selection decisions.
Chris Rogers averaged 49.46 in the Sheffield Shield this season, with over 700 runs. He has an excellent record in County cricket over a number of seasons. He has 18,962 First Class runs at an average of 49.90, with 58 centuries and 86 half centuries. Given the problems Australia still has at the top of its order, and his good record in both English and Australian conditions, and the fact that he really is the only batsmen in Australian cricket who is putting his foot forward with consistent runs, surely he deserves a chance again, especially with so few options available. He can't do any less well than anyone else in the current team.

Matthew Wade has had twelve months in the Test team, and although his batting has been handy, his glovework has been poor. And that is being kind to him. How many more chances have to be missed before he is relieved? Nathan Lyon is the one who is suffering the most from this, at a time that he can hardly have that happen. Brad Haddin has been his deputy, and showed in the 3rd Test when he played how much better his glovework is than Wade's. There is little doubt that both of these players will go to England, because the selectors have already deemed that to be the way it is. But anyone who watched the Shield final could not have helped but be impressed with the keeping and batting displays of Queensland's Chris Hartley and Tasmania's Tim Paine. Both can bat, and both have great hands. In my mind, these are the two I would take to England. They are both young and keen, and whoever got the spot in the Test team would not let their country down. Both have captaincy experience as well, which would be a benefit in this team. But - it won't happen.

The bowling looks to be more straight forward, though there will be a lot of hard luck stories. Siddle, Pattinson and Starc (if fit) will tour. Doubts still remain over Siddle's real effectiveness and ability to move the ball off the straight, but he is a workhorse and has never let the team down and will tour. Pattinson returned from injury brilliantly in India, and will no doubt enjoy the seaming conditions of England. Starc will too, if he can ever stop bowling around the wicket. Someone must put a stop to that.
Jackson Bird will hopefully return, as he appears to be a great fit for English conditions. There is little doubt Ryan Harris will be one of the first chosen for the tour, and if he can stay fit he will be a huge handful for the English batsmen.
The final seam bowling place should go to James Faulkner, who had a sterling summer. He took 39 Shield wickets at an average of 20.33, and has shown he can be very handy in seam friendly conditions as well as flat track conditions. He goes as a genuine bowler, who just for interest sake also scored 444 runs at 34.15 in Shield cricket this season. He gets his spot in front of the eternally unlucky Luke Butterworth, who took 45 wickets at 20.80 again this season as well as scoring 320 runs at 26.66. Chadd Sayers 48 wickets for South Australia also had some good judges suggesting he is another one to look at in the future.

Nathan Lyon will hold his place as Australia's spinner, but despite his nine wicket match in the 4th Test in India he still has some work to do to hold his position. Xavier Doherty will not tour, nor will likely be looked at again for Test cricket. Glenn Maxwell is highly regarded by the selectors, almost to the point that one wonders what hold he has over them. No doubt he will be the second spinner chosen for the tour, but he should not be.
There is a lot of talk for the Pakistan asylum seeker Fawad Ahmed. The 31 year old leg-spinner has made an excellent start to his Australian and Victorian career, and many are pushing for his statuts to be fast tracked so that he can make the Ashes tour. Though I enjoy watching him bowl, I don't think he should be taken to England even if he is available. I would much rather see him have a big off-season, and then hopefully be ready to be picked in the Tests in Australia next summer, on our wickets, where he will be much more effective than any in England.
I would take the youngster Ashton Agar as the back-up spinner. He looks to have a good head on his shoulders, appears calm under pressure, bowls a good orthodox spinner as well as a good arm ball, and holds the bat well enough to average almost 30. Given that we won't be playing two spinners in England, his presence will be there for him to learn and pick up everything he can - and play a part if it comes to that.



The team I would take to England (with who I think the slectors will pick in brackets) would be:

Ed Cowan
David Warner
Chris Rogers (Shane Watson)
Phil Hughes
Usman Khawaja
Steve Smith
Michael Clarke (c)

Tim Paine (Matthew Wade)
Chris Hartley (Brad Haddin)

Peter Siddle
James Pattinson
Mitchell Starc
Jackson Bird
Ryan Harris
James Faulkner

Nathan Lyon
Ashton Agar (Glenn Maxwell)