Australia news

Steve Waugh questions handling of Warner, Haddin

Daniel Brettig

February 14, 2012

Comments: 50 | Text size: A | A

Steve Waugh speaks at the MCC World Cricket Committee meeting, London, July 14, 2009
Steve Waugh was part of the Argus review panel but is unsure of the national selectors' intentions © Associated Press

Steve Waugh, the former Australia captain and a member of the Argus review panel, has questioned the selection circumstances around Ricky Ponting's appointment as stand-in for Michael Clarke in Friday's triangular series ODI at the SCG.

Pointing to David Warner's place as the ODI vice-captain, Waugh wondered why the opening batsman had not been elevated to the captaincy for the one match, while Clarke recovers from a hamstring strain.

"Ricky will do it blindfolded, but the future is probably Dave Warner so I'm surprised they didn't go to Warner and go to the future," Waugh said in Sydney on Tuesday. "It's only a temporary thing, you put Dave Warner in there as vice-captain … I assume they think he is leadership material. If he's vice-captain why can't he captain the side as well? Maybe they think Dave's not quite ready but why is he vice-captain? It doesn't make sense to me."

Waugh also queried the status of Brad Haddin, who was ostensibly rested for the start of the series but remains out of the side while Matthew Wade gets comfortable as the team's limited overs gloveman. Part of the Argus review's directives were to enhance communication and clarity between the selectors and the players, and Waugh appeared doubtful if that could currently be the case.

"I was surprised when they said [Haddin] was rested. He basically said he was dropped," Waugh said. "There's mixed messages there. If he's rested, why doesn't he come back in and be the captain? He's the vice-captain of the Test side, so there was the opportunity for maybe Brad to captain the one-day team. But obviously, he's having an enforced rest. I'm not sure what it is but it's a bit confusing and it would be good for someone to clear it up."

For his part, Haddin seems resigned to the fact that he is now the first-choice wicketkeeper for Test matches only, and has geared his training patterns to playing out the Sheffield Shield season for New South Wales before heading to the Caribbean as the gloveman for three Tests.

"I'm still out of the one day team and I can see no reason for that to change," Haddin told Sky Sports Radio. "I'm pretty comfortable where it's at, all my training over the last week or so has been to make sure I'm ready for the four-day cricket and the Test matches in the West Indies. I can't be sitting around waiting for my phone to ring to play one day cricket again, my job now is to make sure I'm up and running and where I need to be for the Test series."

Haddin was also supportive of Wade's continued retention as the ODI 'keeper, a position the Victorian has filled with some aplomb, particularly with his punchy batting at the top of the order.

"The bits I've seen he's made a pretty good transition into the one-day team, he's playing with a bit of energy and from what I've seen, I see no reason why you should move him," Haddin said, before reiterating his confidence that he remained the Test wicketkeeper of choice. "I can see no reason why that [staying Test 'keeper] should change. We had a successful Test summer, apart from our little hiccup against New Zealand in Hobart, so I can see no reason why that should change."

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

RSS Feeds: Daniel Brettig

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by NaniIndCri on (February 16, 2012, 16:22 GMT)

Excellent point from Waugh, if Warner is not given captaincy in absence of full-time captain, what is the point of giving vice-captaincy to him?

Posted by   on (February 16, 2012, 14:56 GMT)

@bobagorof clearly the point waugh is making is tell haddin he is dropped or play him. I dont think he cares which but just do it. The other is why make warner vice captain if he isn't ready to captain. Both perfectly justified points! selectors still not doing their job and explaining their actions to anyone. IMHO haddin should be dropped and warner shouldn't be vice captain...yet!

Posted by   on (February 16, 2012, 7:34 GMT)

I thought Warner was the obvious choice to captain the T20 team as he place in the T20 team looks secure for the rest of his career. The point i think Steve Waugh is trying to make is that there seems to be a policy by the selectors not to promote to a captancy postion anyone who could be in seasons ahead be considered for the full time position of capatain. Perhaps one of the selectors has some conflict of interest regards this issue.

Posted by Wasim_Wasamadroota on (February 16, 2012, 4:24 GMT)

Agree with Waugh 100% re vice captain, disagree 100% with Waugh re Haddin, any fool can see that the selectors were just sugar coating Haddin's exclusion. He had a shocking summer although he wasn't the only culprit with the bat, a few exceptional performances masks Australias batting problems. Unless Warner said he wasn't quite ready for it, this decision is silly for a meaningless ODI.

Posted by   on (February 16, 2012, 2:59 GMT)

It's a reflection of the importance they are placing on the next ODI now that they have performed under par so far. No way they want to lose this one because the other two sides are playing unexpectedly great cricket.

Posted by DesiOye on (February 16, 2012, 2:52 GMT)

Haddin has had it. He has been week in the tests and not really worthy of a wicket keeper of a team wanting to be no. 1 soon.

Posted by DesiOye on (February 16, 2012, 2:50 GMT)

Get over Warner guys. The fact of the matter is that his performance so far in the Indian summer has been nothing to speak off except that one century he pulled off at Perth. So putting it up at the level of Sehwag who no doubt is having a bad run but has been more than exceptional consistently and has consistently rattled the opposition bowling attacks, is a bit over the top.

I don't think in the current team there is a better captaincy option than Ponting himself. That said, it is no doubt embarrassing for the forward looking Cricket board to show no confidence in the young guns. I don't blame them for not having confidence in Warner though. They need to look elsewhere.

Posted by srivatsan on (February 16, 2012, 0:32 GMT)

Haddin has been the most useless wicket keeper Australia has produced for a while now. Let alone comparing him with Gilchrist, he does not stand to be compared even to Paine and Wade, there is nothing wrong in resting him. Wonder how they still play him in test matches.

Posted by bobagorof on (February 16, 2012, 0:21 GMT)

So what does Waugh suggest happens to Wade if Haddin was brought back for one match? Wade, in great form with the gloves and the bat, to be dropped for Haddin, who was used as a batsman only in his last match (in grade cricket) and who didn't get a score? Or play them both and keep another form batsmen out of the side? The fact is that Haddin's form doesn't warrant selection yet. There is another option already in the squad (Ponting), and the current 'keeper is going great guns. It's unfortunate for Haddin's career, but it's the old adage again - don't give the other guy a chance to take your spot.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 23:23 GMT)

The way it should be planned is Captain falls - Vice captain steps up. It's echelon management OR an admittance that the selectors got it wrong and the status given to Warner was a sop. For me? Let him have it because he wants 'The baggie green' wherever he can get it. He;ll be up and down but can play - and some!

Posted by Patchmaster on (February 15, 2012, 23:15 GMT)

Being and English supporter, I really hop Haddin gets back into the squad, so I can watch James Anderson and Steve Finn make a bunny out of him again in the ashes series.

Posted by hhillbumper on (February 15, 2012, 22:01 GMT)

bring back an old captain once more.All the young talent that is flowing through is where exactly?

Posted by dreamzr4u on (February 15, 2012, 21:51 GMT)

Forrest was good in the last ODI. Make him the captain (based on the criteria Cricket Australia has to appoint captains nowadays) !!!

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 17:45 GMT)

I am surprised that Warner in the first place got to be chosen as a vice-captain.. He is extremely inconsistent with his batting and can lose his place almost anytime with the kind of standards Australians set for themselves. The 180 against India was no indicator of his class.. more than half the runs were gifted to him by the Indian bowling and poor field set. He is very unlikely to perform consistently in any format of the game. But he is certainly a "good to have" until Aussies find a better guy for the role. They are definitely missing Watson. The other choice could have been David Hussey who has some experience as a captain and looks responsible with the bat.. I can understand the choice of Ponting to lead the next match.. it might help Ponting rethink his approach to batting.. Although Ponting scored enough runs in the test series, he is nowhere close to his best..some ordinary bowling and some luck were the reasons for his success..

Posted by santoshjohnsamuel on (February 15, 2012, 15:31 GMT)

One could agree or not with Waugh, but what i found extraordinary is the manner in which the Aussies address cricketing issues. Professional, unsentimental and focussed on the larger picture -- that of Australia trying to be the best, planning for the future, trying to state clearly what the plans are for the team and for the individual players. The passion and love for the game starts from the very top. It should not surprise anyone if the Aussies are back to their winning ways sooner than later. The rest of the boards need to learn a few lessons from the Aussies. However, Srinivasan's comment about the lack of need for an inquiry into the latest Indian debacle does not give hope to Indian fans that our Test cricket future is bright or if it is in the hands of wise men.

Posted by stormy16 on (February 15, 2012, 15:25 GMT)

Seems like CA has got some advice from SLC who do this sort of strange things all the time. I agree with Waugh - if the bloke is appointed at VC, its the perfect opportunity to give a chance and its only probably for one game. I am not sure if Warner should have been made VC but thats a different debate. As for Haddin I think he'll be lucky to go to the Windies in what is surely his last chance. The bloke has dont little in ages and will be lucky to keep his place in the side with so many young players around.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 14:45 GMT)

David Warner is Young and cannot handle aussie team

Posted by Clyde on (February 15, 2012, 14:01 GMT)

The damage to cricket is through simple confusion. Is Warner vice-captain, or not? It is hard to say. A classic error of the kind Argus pointed out. Waugh had no choice but to comment. I am afraid I find that I don't believe the rationales issued with selections, lately. I get the sense that the selectors are being far too smart for the public. Since it is the public that leads, however, there is going to be more dismay in the Australian game, unfortunately. Unless the selectors speak much more plainly, that is, which is going to take time, Argus implementation time. Why not just make selections? After all, it is for the public to decide who the best players are, and they have their own reasons.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 13:49 GMT)

Aus are taking a step backward by appointing Ricky as captain. It shows that they dont trust Warner enough. Having said that, couldnt Mike Hussey lead Aus in this one game ? (I remember he has led Aus in the past in ODIs ). As for Haddin, well too bad !! He was greatly unlucky in the early part of his career when he had to compete with THE BEST KEEPER Adam Gilchrist .. and now younger glovesmen are packing a greater punch...

Posted by RightArmEverything on (February 15, 2012, 7:03 GMT)

I think some people are misinterpreting Waugh's comments. He's just saying the selectors could have been clearer. That if Haddin was dropped (not rested) the selectors should have said that. And why is Warner VC when Clarke is captain if he is not expected to fill in for Clarke when injured? I think they're reasonable questions, whether you agree with the selectors or not. I actually think it is too early for Warner to captain and therefore should not be VC, i.e. just have Ponting as the back-up captain if that's necessary as long as it's only for a game or two. On the whole the selectors are doing a good job in my opinion.

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 5:56 GMT)

There are two clear issues here that need addressing on separate terms. 1) On the captaincy, I agree with steve waugh, Ponting could have simply played a greater role in field setting and planning and played more of a background role in helping Warner ease into the role over the next few years. Nothing against Ricky, he did a good job as captain and he has a lot of experience, but that experience may have been better served in playing an advisory to Warner.

2) On Haddin and the keeping spot, Haddin i think can feel hard done by, this is one example of the rotation policy allowing someone into the side who has put his hand up and said, 'no way your dropping me!' its just bad luck for haddin in ODIs and T20s. Wade has done a great job, not just with his batting, his glove work has been very tidy. They are probably similar in batting ability Wade & Haddin, but on glove work, Wade wins. So go Wade, wel done and well deserved.

Posted by zenboomerang on (February 15, 2012, 3:27 GMT)

Seems Waugh & Watson know more about the conversations between Haddin & the selectors than the selectors know - unless Haddin has spoken to Waugh?... Haddin also publicly stated that he was exhausted before the Adelaide Test - so the selectors gave him a much needed break & now its their fault?... Also Haddin at 34 is nearing the end of his career (Healy was 34 & much better keeper) so Oz need to look for a good long term replacement - now that Paine's career is in limbo due to injuries...

Posted by zenboomerang on (February 15, 2012, 3:24 GMT)

@Adam P Fitch... The point about Cowan is wrong - he has publicly stated on Cricinfo that he now considers himself as a Tasmanian... Whether you like it or not - it his business, not yours... I have no idea what Wade calls himself - do you?... Its not where you are born - its where your heart lives...

Posted by jonesy2 on (February 15, 2012, 2:42 GMT)

warner should be captain, it makes no sense, if not, mitch marsh should be

Posted by   on (February 15, 2012, 2:23 GMT)

I completely agree with Waugh in regards to clarifying: is Haddin dropped or is he being rested. The NSP needs to be clear and transparent in it's position regarding his career. However, I do see where the NSP might be coming from with Warner. They want him exposed to a leadership position and to have a look at his leadership on the international arena, potentially looking at him as an option for the T20 captaincy. They may also want Warner to get captaincy experience in general. However, at this stage the NSP might not feel that he has acquired the adequate experience yet and/or they are still unsure of his captaincy ability and don't want to risk his captaincy in a full ODI. The NSP may also fear throwing him in the deep end too soon and damaging him for the future - he is only young. I can though, see the benefit of seeing if he sinks or floats in a relatively unimportant ODI - yet perhaps it's just too early for that?

Posted by dsig3 on (February 15, 2012, 1:29 GMT)

Yeah he has a point obviously. Its a bit embarrassing for us as the selectors have basically said that Warner is not up to it even though he was given the vice captaincy. I can understand what they are doing but it looks a bit strange and weak. Warner has a bright future but surely he needs to nail down a spot before being a team leader. He is only in the position because Haddin is gone. An unfortunate situation, but I think we will all get over it by Friday...........hopefully.

Posted by Gizza on (February 15, 2012, 1:12 GMT)

Steve Waugh is not saying Warner should be made captain or that Haddin should be back in the side. He's saying Warner should either be vice-captain generally and captain for this one game or not have any leadership responsibilities at the moment. That's what a vice-captain means doesn't it? Become captain when the main captain is not available. And with regards to Haddin, he's saying it should be announced that Haddin was dropped from the ODI's, not just "rested" which seems to be a lame euphemism. Waugh is also saying that if Haddin was actually rested he should be back in the green and gold. So his main point is that the selectors aren't communicating well to the players. He's not really commenting on the actual selections.

Posted by Meety on (February 14, 2012, 23:36 GMT)

IMO - this is a bit of a storm in a tea cup. Warner was given the V/C position so as he can start thinking about being a part of the leadership of the side. The world does NOT revolve around the captain & vc, they have meetings where experienced players (in the main), are included in tactics & strategies. Leadership is not always a natural activity for some people. I think Greg Chappell & AB were not natural leaders but adapted to be so. I personally never thought of Warner as a "thinker" in terms of cricket - however, his Hobart innings where he batted outside the crease to minimize the movement showed a thought process. His being asked to "fill in" as the ODI v/c role is just a strategy to make Warner more aware of what goes into running a team on & off the field. I seriously doubt he is anywhere near the long term role of ODI captain (yet). How he tracks after this experience will be what the NSP will be considering.

Posted by othello22 on (February 14, 2012, 23:21 GMT)

@Mark Simpson - I'm not *agreeing* with anything he said. Its very simple mate, Waugh was questioning why Warner wasn't given the captaincy seeing that he's the current vice captain, I'm saying it's perfectly obvious. Warner's been made VC (only in the absence of Shane Watson, mind you) as an experiment to test him out and see if he's made of the right stuff. Obviously, the NSP aren't yet convinced that he is, hence why he has not been made captain. Very simple. If Clarke's injury layoff was looking like a long term thing then I would question the sense in giving the captaincy back to Ponting, but as it happens it's only a stop-gap measure and its the only logical solution. To even bring Haddin into the equation at this stage is ludicrous. Maybe Steve was trying to suggest something else here, maybe he was just talking rubbish. I don't claim to know what the man is thinking, I'm just calling it as I see it.

Posted by   on (February 14, 2012, 21:45 GMT)

Wade is not Victorian, he is Tasmanian. Stop calling him Victorian, cricinfo. I haven't seen you call Cowan Tasmanian yet, and rightly so. So get Wade's state of origin right.

Posted by straight_drive4 on (February 14, 2012, 19:59 GMT)

Everyone can bag Steve Waugh as much as they like but they hve to remember its because of him, AB and tubby that we are doing so well. Their aim was to get rid of all these out of date theories that CA had been using. You need to read into what Steve Waugh is saying and not look at the surface. Essentially, he is saying that we aren't following what the argus report has recommended into looking to the future. Sure I understand that this may not be an ideal situation with so many put injured but I think he wants the selectors to fall into good habits rather than relying on old bad habits everytime someone gets injured or something goes wrong. Again - I understand this situation is difficult because Warner isn't scoring runs but Im hoping it's the long term he's looking towards and doesn't want the selectors going back to their bad old habits. These three very smart men wrote the report for a reason. Let's stick with it! It's done wonders so far!!

Posted by RandyOZ on (February 14, 2012, 16:34 GMT)

Haddin simply HAS to go. No more excuses. No more chances. NO MORE. Welcome to the Baggy greeny Wadey. Paine, if you want a crack get yourself fit mate!

Posted by Dashgar on (February 14, 2012, 15:09 GMT)

Many people have missed the point of what Steve is saying. Lucky Mark Simpson is spot on. Read his comment below. Steve basically agrees with everything the NSP have "done" but not what they have "said". Tell Haddin he's been dropped but that if Wade fails he'll be back in. Tell Warner he's being considered for leadership roles in the future but have Ricky be Vice Captain. All this seemed to be planned from the start. So say it from the start to avoid all this foolishness. And guys just think before you criticise Steve Waugh. He's very smart and everyone here has agreed with everything he's said whether they knew it or not.

Posted by 9-Monkeys on (February 14, 2012, 14:02 GMT)

As argued by others here and on other articles on the website I think the selectors' call on the ODI captaincy is correct. And I have no idea why Waugh has bought into the Haddin matter unless he is doing Haddin's bidding. I have no doubt Haddin has been spoken to by one or a combination of Invervarity, Marsh and Arthur (all well regarded as good, open and honest communicators) and he knows exactly what is going on. I suspect he doesn't like it however and is making noise accordingly. Best I suggest that he concentrate on his cricket (which put simply has not been good enough of late) and stop talking to the media.

Posted by   on (February 14, 2012, 13:02 GMT)

@othello22: what you're saying is exactly the point Waugh is making. Warner is not ready to be captain, so why is he vice captain? Haddin has been dropped, so why is the NSP saying he's being rested? You're actually *agreeing* with what Waugh had to say.

Posted by othello22 on (February 14, 2012, 11:58 GMT)

Tugga is a legend of Australian cricket but one can only assume he has now gone and lost his marbles if his comments here are anything to go by. NEWS FLASH: Warner was not given the captaincy because he is not ready for it, his record at this level is scratchy at best and the last thing he needs is even more pressure than he already has. Haddin was not brought back because his form has been rubbish for a long time now and the "enforced rest" scenario has only been brought about because the NSP is trying to be nice. He is a shot duck and he knows it, so what is there to gain by bringing him back and making him captain? These are the comments of a fool, Steve. Seeing as this whole captaincy issue is only a temporary thing (Clarke will be back in no time), Ponting is the only logical choice. This is all very simple, straight forward stuff, why is anyone even discussing it? Madness, I tell you. Correct decision made - Move on everyone.

Posted by   on (February 14, 2012, 11:44 GMT)

@Shaun, I guess everyone hailing him as the next Sehwag is appropriate given Sehwag's return in the last one year. I agree with you that both Sehwag and Warner should be left out of the respective teams as their successes are far and few

Posted by Gordo85 on (February 14, 2012, 11:36 GMT)

Shuan Hick is right what an earth is Dave Warner even doing in the team? He keeps on failing in ODI's and has been given way too many chances already to do well in ODI's. I guess it just shows how he can fade out pretty easy.

Posted by rohanbala on (February 14, 2012, 10:21 GMT)

Many would not agree with Steve Waugh's views about giving the captaincy to Warner. Warner has first to score enough runs to retain his place in the team, let alone be named as captain in the immediate future. The impending return of Shane Watson would mean a shake up in the batting order. Haddin does not deserve his recall so soon and a short spell of isolation would surely make him think that he cannot take his place for granted after playing horrendous shots particularly when contribution from a lower order batsman is necessary. Mathew Wade is a good replacement for Haddin and it would be an unwise move to bring Haddin back into the team at this juncture.

Posted by goodgame123 on (February 14, 2012, 10:21 GMT)

If nothing else, this could be the end of Haddin

Posted by HatsforBats on (February 14, 2012, 9:40 GMT)

Well, Haddin, your lack of consistent form and complete irresponsibility at crucial times with the bat along with periods of awful glovework would be reason enough for change to occur in the test side. Wade is by no means the finished article behind the stumps but he's no worse than Haddin & his batting is better; not too mention he's 10 years younger.

Posted by   on (February 14, 2012, 9:24 GMT)

Hate to say it but don't even know what Warner's doing in the team. He'll fail more than succeed at ODI and Test level. Once Watson's fit, he and Wade should open, I don't see a place for a one in ten innings player like Warner. Unfortunately he seems the flavour of the month and will probably keep his place failure after failure, till he gets a big hundred again and everyone hails him the next Sehwag. Glad he's not Captain.

Posted by sifter132 on (February 14, 2012, 9:23 GMT)

He's right on - on both things. Your vice-captain isn't a position for the work experience kid ie. you don't need to be named vc to be learning how to captain...Your vice captain is your captain if something happens to Clarke. Yet with the naming of Watson last year and the naming of Warner this time, you get the feeling that they wouldn't be a first choice captain if Clarke was injured. Guys like Haddin and Ponting or even Hussey would be the on field marshallls.

And yes there are mixed messages about Haddin's current status. The sooner it's cleared up the better for everyone: Haddin; the fans; everyone.

Posted by Blakey on (February 14, 2012, 9:05 GMT)

@chickenpoo, maybe they have. I didn't see where the selector's contract says they have to explain every decision to the general public. Steve's comment about 'enhanced communication' doesn't mean it is not happening, it may just mean that 'we' haven't been told.

Posted by class9ryan on (February 14, 2012, 8:51 GMT)

This is absolute nuisance from Steve Waugh. Warner is d vice just due 2 Watto's injury. Its better that Warner gets few runs first, giving captaincy is different. However, Australia changes their captain unpredictably just like George Bailey

Posted by zenboomerang on (February 14, 2012, 8:26 GMT)

Think Waugh's comments are thoughtless - obviously hasn't looked at the situation with Watson out atm... While Warner has still got the training wheels on & gaining experience... Also hard to have Warner as captain then get demoted from VC job when Watson returns in a few weeks - it would feel like a slap in his face & too much of a rollercoaster on a player who's OD form hasn't been great lately...

Posted by RoJayao on (February 14, 2012, 8:24 GMT)

I'm staggered by the arrogance of Haddin's last statement. Absolutely the team had a good test summer, but Haddin's tangible contribution was minimal. Haddin himself complained of his heavy workload this summer and of feeling tired, so the term "rest" seemed entirely appropriate for him. Perhaps he should also have been told that he needed to demonstrate some improvement with his form in first class cricket to justify his place as first keeper in the test side. His place is not a right, nor should it be a foregone conclusion. You arrogant sod, your time is over!

Posted by natasrik on (February 14, 2012, 7:43 GMT)

I am not sure what SWaugh is talking about, Warner is vice captain just because Shane watson is injured. Warner cannot be a captains material as of now and Ponting was obvious choice. Wade has not done anything bad with the chances he has got so far, so haddin has to wait and rediscover the form. Australian ODI team is not like Indian ODI team. The crux of the middle order is going to be the near future of Indian team while Australian team middle order is pretty weak so the selectors just cannot do away with Ponting and Hussey as of now.

Posted by AdoSR on (February 14, 2012, 7:37 GMT)

I see no issue with any of this. Warner is VC so he can learn to be captain. It doesn't automatically make him captain. I'm sure he's happy with the situation as it is. As for Haddin, it was pretty obvious that they were trialling Wade. If he succeeded then Haddin would be dropped. If he didn't then they left to door open for Haddin's return. If they said 'dropped' rather than 'rested' then that door would have been closed. Is that what Haddin wanted? I doubt it. People are a bit too precious with words. The selectors have done the right thing provided they are talking to the players concerned.

Posted by chickenpoo on (February 14, 2012, 7:28 GMT)

I don't mind the selectors dropping Haddin, but its slack of them to not have the guts to actually tell him that. None of this 'rested' nonesense...this is only gonna get ugly from here on

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Daniel BrettigClose
Daniel Brettig Assistant editor Daniel Brettig had been a journalist for eight years when he joined ESPNcricinfo, but his fascination with cricket dates back to the early 1990s, when his dad helped him sneak into the family lounge room to watch the end of day-night World Series matches well past bedtime. Unapologetically passionate about indie music and the South Australian Redbacks, Daniel's chief cricketing achievement was to dismiss Wisden Almanack editor Lawrence Booth in the 2010 Ashes press match in Perth - a rare Australian victory that summer.
Tournament Results
Australia v Sri Lanka at Adelaide - Mar 8, 2012
Australia won by 16 runs
Australia v Sri Lanka at Adelaide - Mar 6, 2012
Sri Lanka won by 8 wickets (with 34 balls remaining)
Australia v Sri Lanka at Brisbane - Mar 4, 2012
Australia won by 15 runs
Australia v Sri Lanka at Melbourne - Mar 2, 2012
Sri Lanka won by 9 runs
India v Sri Lanka at Hobart - Feb 28, 2012
India won by 7 wickets (with 80 balls remaining)
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days