The worst thing about the Australian cricket team at the moment is not its arrogance. It’s not the protection of out-of-form players. It’s not even their complete disregard for selection hierarchy.
The odd selection decisions and their explanations are completely bizarre and out of touch with the public’s expectations.
In many ways, Nathan McSweeney was set up to fail, not least because he shouldn’t have been picked to open in the first place. His best performances have come at either No.3 or No.4 for South Australia and Australia A. His treatment recalls that of Aaron Finch, who was picked to open against Jasprit Bumrah in the 2018 Border-Gavaskar Trophy.
He failed to trouble the scorers much, and his Test career ended just three matches into the series.
In 2021, Matthew Wade was asked to open against Bumrah after making his career batting at No.6 or No.7 for Australia.
Wade’s top score of 40 whilst opening the batting hinted at better things to come, but when Joe Burns was (somewhat unluckily) dropped after the second Test, Wade also found himself batting at No.5 for the rest of the series, never to play for Australia again in Test cricket.
Other baffling decisions abound. Remember Scott Boland’s selection? He leapfrogged Michael Neser (who’d played the previous Test) into that spot.
Matthew Kuhnemann? He leapfrogged Ashton Agar and Mitchell Swepson and played in India. So much for selection hierarchy!
And so it brings the conversation to this week and the selection of Sam Konstas, hitherto untried in an international squad.
Sam Konstas (Photo by Mark Nolan/Getty Images)
There can be no doubt that Konstas, the New South Wales wunderkind, has had an exceptional start to his career. A career average of 42 attests to that. In comparison to McSweeney, Konstas provides the solution that the selectors are looking for.
He’s very young (can open for the next 15-18 years in Australian colours), he’s in form, and he scores his runs at a fast clip (strike rate of 51 compared to McSweeney’s 42 in FC cricket).
Yet, despite his selection undoubtedly being the right call, there’s a stench about it that cannot be denied. If the selectors thought Konstas needed more time (and I think he does), why pick him three matches into the BGT, instead of starting with him?
What has the extra couple rounds of the Sheffield Shield and two Big Bash League games shown them that they hadn’t already seen? Why pick McSweeney in the first place and ostensibly set him up to fail?
McSweeney’s selection demonstrates that the selectors haven’t learned their lessons from Finch and Wade, both picked to do the same job for which they were both similarly unsuited.
Neither man represented Australia in Test cricket again after that India series, and both saw their careers in permanent decline from that point. At 23, McSweeney undoubtedly has many years of Test cricket ahead of him.
This shouldn’t be the end of his Test career because positions will open in the middle order with both Steve Smith (35) and Mitch Marsh (33) nearer to the ends of their careers than the beginnings.
Then again, perhaps the selectors would favour an out-of-form, 39-year-old Smith for one last hurrah against an easy touring side (perhaps the West Indies, Zimbabwe, Ireland or Afghanistan) to give him a nice swansong from Test cricket over picking McSweeney.
As one learned teacher said, “Always in motion is the future”, meaning that the decisions made now impact the future.
For the selectors, picking Konstas and dropping McSweeney allows them to kick the renewal can down the road, but with a crucial Ashes series looming next year, the process cannot be put off any longer. Both Konstas and McSweeney deserve their spots in favour of out-of-form batters.
George Bailey and co. will be judged on the side’s performances in the BGT and the Ashes. Can the selectors make the tough calls needed to axe the dead wood and rejuvenate the side?
Based on this call, it seems unlikely.
#Konstas #selection #call #correct
