It has been well documented how Australia have struggled since the retirement of so many top stars, from Hayden and Langer to Gilchrist and the Waugh brothers, but it is the loss of McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Lee from Tests which must have been felt the hardest.
Mitch Johnson has developed into a very useful fast bowler, but injury is beginning to affect his ability to perform consistently at his best. Shaun Tait long ago opted to bowl occasional four-over stints rather than be a full-time cricketer. Harris, Hilfenhaus, Siddle and others have failed to nail down a regular place and of course every Aussie who can spin a ball in the Sheffield Shield has been tried. Teen star Pat Cummins looks the real deal but it is still early days. So what is going on with Cricket Australia in picking for the First Test against New Zealand a front line attack with a collective career of just ninety first-class matches. Not Tests, first-class matches!
I suppose it's good to blood new talent against relatively weak opposition but can just a handful of four-day games prepare any bowler for a stressful five-day game in front of big crowds? It must be particularly tough for seamers, who surely need time in the middle working out strategies against contrasting batting styles, how to make the most from different types of pitch in a range of conditions. I know that injuries have played their part this week, but Peter Siddle has played only 51 first-class fixtures in his career, and this is well above the total played by Pattinson, Starc and Lyon between them! The Aussies will probably win the match because NZ's talented bunch of batsmen play too many silly shots, probably because they are too used to playing ODIs or T20, at which they are extremely good. But will it vindicate the selectors' decisions to go with such inexperienced bowlers?
When the Baggy Greens were dominant in the late '80s and '90s it was said that they were helped by having so few domestic first-class games which apparently wear cricketers out. Ahh, poor darlings! So why have Australia sunk so low in the world rankings now? England and India have risen to the top in recent years by developing young talent in domestic competitions so they can deal with all the problems which may face them in the biggest pressure-cooker occasions. I really think that unless Australia unearth several truly awesome talents very quickly they will not recover. Even in the batting line-up, while Hughes and Khawaja have potential, will David Warner curb his world-class T20 instincts sufficiently to make it at Test level? At 25, he is a veteran of more than 100 T20 games but only 11 first-class contests. At least he has scored three hundreds this year, suggesting he may make the transition, but he hadn't a clue against 22 year-old Tim Southee (38 first-class games) yesterday, and lasted only three balls.
I feel that Pakistan will bounce back from current woes because their domestic competitions do at least allow young players, especially bowlers, to learn their craft. The County Championship does the same job in England where, although I don't regard Anderson, Broad, Bresnan, Tremlett and co to be brilliant natural pacemen, they have grown into the role by practice and experience and are now lauded as the best Test attack in world cricket. In Australia, of course they can only select the top players from what they see on the pitch, little as it is, but I reckon they should give the slightly older bowlers more chance to gel before giving the green baggy to such 'green' youngsters. Give them a chance to develop or they could come a cropper against top batsmen and be scarred for life!
