Australia's ODI overhaul in the leadup to the 2019 WC

[quincywagstaff]

From Cricinfo:

Australia's selection chairman Trevor Hohns has conceded what the 3-0 loss to England in the ODI series has made patently clear - the 50-overs team needs a complete reinvention in terms of personnel and playing style to be a factor at next year's World Cup.

Not terribly surprising but still highly noteworthy that it's come to this; it feels like Australia's one-day performances and planning have been on snooze for a fair while now; understandably a lot of focus was placed on the India tour and Ashes campaign but in the past they've been capable of being masters of both formats at the same time.

They've had several poor performances overseas in the last couple of years (series losses in NZ in both 2016 & 2017, 5-0 loss in South Africa in 2016, 4-1 in India 2017, failure at the Champions Trophy) but their extremely strong home ODI record has until now meant they're ignored and discarded as irrelevant series. But a comprehensive home series loss like this against an England lineup that looks far more advanced in tactics and purpose has probably been for the long-term benefit of Australia as they now have to face up to the stagnation in their side since the last WC.

Probably the biggest question for the Australian selectors and admin is: should Steve Smith remain as ODI captain?

It may seem sacrilege to suggest such a move but the results have become increasingly poor and he has many issues as a leader; his body language continues to come across as sulky and immature with his teapot stances and gesticulations in the field whenever things go against Australia (something Steve Waugh called him out on a little while back). And he seems to struggle a bit with handling spin; it took him a fair while as Test captain to show the necessary faith in Lyon and he always comes across as having little faith in Zampa; it wouldn't surprise at all if he was the one pushing for Zampa to be left out at the Gabba even though they were a bowler short. And what has obviously been a falling out with Glenn Maxwell doesn't suggest the man management has been going that well

If there's no improvement in these remaining two matches and the series in England I reckon they'll turn to Warner.

 

[Spikey]

nothing like a couple of loses at home for the selectors to start going crazy and suddenly react to the problems in the team.

the biggest question for the Australian selectors is who is the other batsman in the team gonna be and do they actually want a spinner in the team

 

[stephen]

I think Nathan Lyon is a must. I also think that bringing in Shaun Marsh and Glenn Maxwell is important. My team:

Finch (c)
Warner
S Marsh
Smith
Stoinis (5)
Maxwell (6)
M Marsh (4)
Carey+
Starc (1)
Hazlewood (2)
Lyon (3)

I liked what I saw of Carey the other night. I think he's a better keeping option than Paine for OD games. S Marsh slots in at 3. He's the most in form batsman in the Matador cup. I'd like Stoinis higher, but I can't bat him above Smith or Marsh. Smith can play the #4 anchor like Clarke used to do. Stoinis, Maxwell, M Marsh gives a lot of lower order firepower with the bat. It does mean we're half a bowler short having to rotate through Stoinis, Marsh and Maxwell for 20 overs, but Lyon, Starc and Hazlewood are all genuinely top bowlers in the format. Cummins hasn't impressed greatly from what I've seen so far.

That leaves:

White
Head
Paine
Cummins

all out.

If Lynn plays, he has to bat 3 and replace Marsh. But honestly I'd only do that if either Marsh or Smith got injured and couldn't bat.

 

[Daemon]

White is obviously going to be dropped. Will be truly amazed if he keeps his place in the side after this.

Bit like how Ferguson was a victim of the overhaul in the Test side after they lost to SA.

 

[Burgey]

I’d play Short over Darsh and bat him three. Also gives an extra bowling option.

 

[Red]

Now's the time to give Short a debut, surely?

It's not the time to jump at shadows. We're still ok. I'd give Warner a bit of a rest for the final two games though.

D.Short
A.Finch
S.Marsh/G.Maxwell
S.Smith
M.Stoinis
M.Marsh
T.Paine
M.Starc
P.Cummins
J.Hazelwood
N.Lyon

I'd play SMarsh over Maxwell, but if they're concerned about SMarsh injury and want to save him for the red ball, get Maxi in at #3.

 

[Red]

Jhye Richardson looks a ripping find and could go a long way.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

The real worrying thing for me is that it seems like Chris Lynn will be rushed back as soon as fit. That is just bad thinking, I tend to believe the eagerness to get him back playing is the cause of a lot of his recurring issues. McCullum said on Big Bash commentary last night that is is up to Lynn himself as to when he feels he is ready to return, that approach clearly isn't working though.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Probably the biggest question for the Australian selectors and admin is: should Steve Smith remain as ODI captain?

It may seem sacrilege to suggest such a move but the results have become increasingly poor and he has many issues as a leader; his body language continues to come across as sulky and immature with his teapot stances and gesticulations in the field whenever things go against Australia (something Steve Waugh called him out on a little while back). And he seems to struggle a bit with handling spin; it took him a fair while as Test captain to show the necessary faith in Lyon and he always comes across as having little faith in Zampa; it wouldn't surprise at all if he was the one pushing for Zampa to be left out at the Gabba even though they were a bowler short. And what has obviously been a falling out with Glenn Maxwell doesn't suggest the man management has been going that well

If there's no improvement in these remaining two matches and the series in England I reckon they'll turn to Warner.

Or is that the real reason they recalled Cameron White . . .

 

[NZTailender]

I'm a bit out of the loop on Aussie selections and domestic form etc. Where is James Faulkner at in terms of selection? Seemed indispensable a few years ago.

 

[stephen]

I'm a bit out of the loop on Aussie selections and domestic form etc. Where is James Faulkner at in terms of selection? Seemed indispensable a few years ago.

His batting is no longer at the level required for him to fill the all rounder role. Stoinis has more than adequately replaced him.

 

[Burgey]

I'm a bit out of the loop on Aussie selections and domestic form etc. Where is James Faulkner at in terms of selection? Seemed indispensable a few years ago.

Mad Dog found him indispensable last night.

 

[GirtBySea]

Mad Dog found him indispensable last night.

Mad Dog Maddinson is actually someone who hasn't been spoken about much, if at all, for a reserve or even a starting spot.
He's had some great seasons in the Matador Cup and is now on fire in the BBL; even with the Sixers diabolical start, he wasn't terrible then either.

 

[quincywagstaff]

Interesting to read Glenn Maxwell (who’s been called back to the squad as cover for the injured Finch) call out Australia’s outdated ODI batting tactics this series. Few who’ve watched this series would disagree with this assertion but it’s really shown up by the career SR of the batsmen of each side.

All of the English top 8 have Strike Rates above 85 (multiple have above 100) and only Root & Morgan are below 90. Contrast that with Australia bringing back Cameron White who has a career Strike Rate of 80 and Tim Paine who has a 1990s style Strike Rate of just under 70. Even Steve Smith’s career Strike Rate is lower than all of the English Top 8.

When they bring back White & Paine and drop Maxwell (average over 30 and SR of over 120) is it any wonder Australia’s ODI style has looked outdated this series? If they learn anything from this series, it's that Australia need to factor in SR (as opposed to averages) in batting selection much more than they have previously.

 

[TheJediBrah]

It will be so disappointing when Travis Head plays this game and not Maxwell

Just when you thought we were making progress by dropping that hack

 

[S.Kennedy]

If you look at how the England implemented their changes after 2015, they basically allowed every batsman to play his shots on the understanding that there will be no criticism if he gets out cheaply. The theory I believe is that somebody from the openers up through to M. Ali at seven will stick around and produce that big score (and don't forget, they're playing without Stokes). It is fearless cricket. I think there is even an understanding that sometimes it will fail you, but more often than not it will succeed so you take that gamble.

We nicked the style from the Kiwis so...

 

[quincywagstaff]

It will be so disappointing when Travis Head plays this game and not Maxwell

And Head's SR is also lower than the entire current England top 8 (and Stokes as well).

 

[Adders]

If you look at how the England implemented their changes after 2015, they basically allowed every batsman to play his shots on the understanding that there will be no criticism if he gets out cheaply. The theory I believe is that somebody from the openers up through to M. Ali at seven will stick around and produce that big score (and don't forget, they're playing without Stokes). It is fearless cricket. I think there is even an understanding that sometimes it will fail you, but more often than not it will succeed so you take that gamble.

We nicked the style from the Kiwis so...

It works because you have players like Woakes at 8, Rashid 9 and even Plunkett at 10.......that's a ridiculously long batting lineup and all of them have the capacity to belt the piss out of the ball. Like you say you only really need 1 of them to go big and 2 or 3 to make a decent contribution...........the odds are pretty good when you have 10 lining up who can all do it, it only works though because of the abundance of all rounders England have at the moment.

It's a shame for Australia (not really....like I could gaf) that Faulkner is no good anymore. Him, Starc, Maxwell and M Marsh should allow them to take the same approach.

 

[Flem274*]

We nicked the style from the Kiwis so...

not really. we seem to be credited with it, but basically mccullum had that license and guptill, kane, taylor, elliott ensured we got to 150/2 or 3 at the 35th. then everyone had the license to go nuts.

we still have that style. guptill and munro go for it up top and kane and taylor make sure we get to the death with wickets in hand

bowling is actually where we went all in with the brave tactic. mccullum removed the danger of the death overs by spamming boult, southee and friends to ensure the oppo were dead by the 30th. if anything was left able to hold a bat, adam milne the 150kph gavin larsen and jammy left arm bounce from anderson ensured only good death hitters would have a chance of salvaging the situation.

australia won the world cup because james faulkner went bang bang bang with the ball after elliott recovered nz to 150/3 just as happy hour arrived. we had been cruising through on the power of our top and middle order all world cup and once faulkner removed it ronchi and co. weren't up to it. australia also had 150kph swinging yorkers in hand so faulkner getting the wickets first really killed nz.

but the mainstream cheap narrative is nz inventing the idea of slogging for 50 overs regardless of situation and then starc won the world cup in the first over by bowling out the only bloke who was allowed to get out slogging early.

 

[TheJediBrah]

not really. we seem to be credited with it, but basically mccullum had that license and guptill, kane, taylor, elliott ensured we got to 150/2 or 3 at the 35th. then everyone had the license to go nuts.

we still have that style. guptill and munro go for it up top and kane and taylor make sure we get to the death with wickets in hand

bowling is actually where we went all in with the brave tactic. mccullum removed the danger of the death overs by spamming boult, southee and friends to ensure the oppo were dead by the 30th. if anything was left able to hold a bat, adam milne the 150kph gavin larsen and jammy left arm bounce from anderson ensured only good death hitters would have a chance of salvaging the situation.

australia won the world cup because james faulkner went bang bang bang with the ball after elliott recovered nz to 150/3 just as happy hour arrived. we had been cruising through on the power of our top and middle order all world cup and once faulkner removed it ronchi and co. weren't up to it. australia also had 150kph swinging yorkers in hand so faulkner getting the wickets first really killed nz.

but the mainstream cheap narrative is nz inventing the idea of slogging for 50 overs regardless of situation and then starc won the world cup in the first over by bowling out the only bloke who was allowed to get out slogging early.

Even if he hadn't I'm not sure NZ would have got anywhere near enough to defend. That Aus team could have likely chased even 300+ relatively comfortably.

Those Faulkner wickets definitely played a part, but more so helped in making the game even more one-sided, than actually deciding the result. The World Cup was pretty much lost when McCullum missed one on the stumps, then confirmed when Guptill did likewise.

edit: good post though, and yes I realise my response is not directly relevant to the topic under discussion