England v Australia, Champions Trophy, Group A, Edgbaston June 8, 2013

Trouble is, Bailey is the best Australia have got

George Bailey might not be the answer to all, or any, of Australia's problems but at the minute he's their brightest light. That is their biggest problem

There is this recurring theme that George Bailey isn't much of a batsman. That he is lucky to be there. That without his captaincy skills he wouldn't even be picked in this line up.

It is all based on the fact that for the first time since Australia's first Test, a player was picked to captain Australia despite the fact that he'd never played international cricket. Sure, it was only T20, a form that has never been taken seriously in Australia. But this was a massive thing.

Bailey was seen as one of the mad professor's gambles. Australian cricket often fears anything different, and with John Inverarity picking cricketers based on their intelligence and leadership skills, Bailey became an easy target. He'd never had a massive Sheffield Shield season that demanded he be picked. His first-class average was not monumental. He'd not dominated county cricket or the IPL. And he was no young prodigy that could play for the next 10 years. Bailey was often a punch line for a cricket system that was failing on many levels.

Of course Bailey had little to do with Australia's fall from grace. He hadn't played when they lost the No. 1 Test match crown or the last World Cup. Even in the World T20 he took a poor side and got it to the semi-final. They were beaten by the eventual champions West Indies, and while his team crumbled, he played his best innings against them.

Today in the press box, there was talk that he was the worst batsman of any Australian captains since the Packer era. Kim Hughes, Allan Border, Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke are fair batsmen. And had Bailey been anywhere near their talent, you'd expect he would have played far earlier in his career. He didn't, because he just isn't that good. Most aren't.

But with Clarke injured, Bailey is the most likely batsmen in this team to make a score. In his ODI career he averages 45.50 with a strike rate of 83.74. The average is amazing, the strike rate, could be higher. Bailey wasn't picked in the ODI side as a captain, he was picked as a batsman, and as a batsman in the last two years he has been by far Australia's most consistent in all conditions.

Despite their reputations, in the same period Shane Watson and David Warner strike rates are only 80 and 81 respectively. Watson averaging 37.37 and Warner averaging 34.95.

Hughes has averaged 49.55 in that period, but with a strike rate of 75. And despite some of his trademark flashes through the off side, here looked completely out of his depth. He made 30 off 55 balls, and gave two chances, or three, as he might have edged the ball he was should have been stumped off.

Despite the fact that Matthew Wade is Australia's first choice ODI keeper, his Test record is far better, and this was another disappointing outing for him, with his average now barely staying above 20.

Mitchell Marsh at No. 6 just doesn't look right and then Australia only have Adam Voges, who is only a few matches into his comeback. He's looked really good after a comically bad run at the start of Australia's domestic summer.

The shame for Australia, is that in all forms of cricket they have quality fast bowlers. Today they did well to restrict England, who at one stage looked like they would skip merrily to 300 with their eyes closed. In the end, all the bowlers good work only made Australia's losing margin less embarrassing.

This bowling line up doesn't even include Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle or James Pattinson. And yet when compared to the batting line up, it's just far superior. In fact, it would be awkward to even compare the two on talent or form right now. This bowling attack with almost any other batting line up, perhaps Pakistan excluded, would be in a better position, or an actual position, to win this tournament.

With this line up, it's hard to see how Australia will even get into the semi-finals. On form and confidence, James Faulkner could bat as high as No. 5 and not look out of place.

Today, Warner was out in typical fashion. As did Watson. Hughes just couldn't get going. Voges and Wade were undone by movement. Marsh absolutely smashed the hell out of a ball, straight to Morgan at point.

Of the batsmen, it was only Bailey who looked at home, scored with any ease, and handled the moving ball. When he got out, he also looked the most passionate. Right now, he, and potentially Voges, look the best of a very poor bunch.

Bailey might have been picked as an experiment, and he might not be the answer to all, or any, of Australia's problems. But right now he's the best they have to work with. And that is the major problem.

Jarrod Kimber is 50% of the Two Chucks, and the mind responsible for cricketwithballs.com

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Andrew on June 11, 2013, 3:00 GMT

    Everything is going according to Clarke's 9 step plan to win back the Ashes. Step1) Have a subdued Test tour of India (Success), Step 2) Keep our gun Test bowlers away from the prying eyes of the English media (if they saw how good they really were, the Fleet Street press would go into meltdown) - (Success), Step 3) Keep Clarke out of the direct media limelight, so he can continue to fine tune his detailed plans to dismantle the entire England batting line up - County players included, by pretending to have a bad back) - (Success), Step 4) Water down Ashes hype by not beating England in the 1st game - (Success).Steps 1 to 4 are designed to have retired English "experts" coming out of hybernation (or the retirement home) & making ridiculous statements - (read Botham). Step 5 thru to 9 is simply winning the next Test - which I am sure will be successful. Therefor ladies & gentlemen - Oz to win the Ashes 5nil! Simple.

  • Anthony on June 10, 2013, 13:13 GMT

    Front-foot-lunge - the slide England started? I can only assume you mean, it was started by all our recent greats retiring because they were bored with beating England so often. Just how different is this team to the ones who won the last two Champions Trophy's? Jarrod, it might be time for a bit of revision on the greatness of Pontings ODI captaincy. I mean we have been in decline a good few years now, but he was able to keep the ODI side winning for a lot more years than should have been possible, with the ever diminishing resources available.

  • j on June 10, 2013, 10:46 GMT

    Bailey's your typical cricketer from down under: Tries hard, but just not good enough for this level. And he's captain and the best they've got. Australia remain trapped in the depths of cricketing mediocrity, years after their infamous 'slide' that England started them on all those years ago. England beat them just for fun these days, this match was no different.

  • Scott on June 10, 2013, 8:00 GMT

    Watson, Warner, S Marsh, Hughes, Clarke, Ferguson, Paine, Johnson, Starc, spinner - (doesn't really matter who as they're all as dodgy as each other), Cummins/Pattinson/anyone not regarded as "workman-like"...If Warner can't get it together soon, then maybe we can add someone like Finch, or get Usman batting for the national side in hopes we can introduce him into the test arena. If Hughes or anyone in the middle order can't cut it, then we bring in Bailey or Voges.

  • GeoffreysMother on June 10, 2013, 7:59 GMT

    I think this is a very fair article and accurate about the batting strengths of Hughes, Warner and Watson. Despite Warne's complaints about Bailey on commentary he offered no solution, other than Australia should play better. In England, Voges only gets to play country cricket when David Hussey is not available which says a bit about how highly he is ranked. I think however you don't give enough credit to England's bowling. They at least matched the Australian's and the first three wickets were all down to the pressure they had created on 'attacking' batsmen. They also have the luxury of a spinner and a reserve spinner of international class, which suggests your estimation of the Aussie attack as the best along with Pakistan is a bit over the top. To be fair New Zealand's looks as good, and more varied. The time to assess Faulkner, like Hughes, and to be fair Joe Root, is after 10 or 12 matches when the opposition have had a good look at him. Seems good, but let's see how good.

  • Adhitya on June 10, 2013, 5:44 GMT

    Very well put Kimber. It is hard to admit as a fan but this is 100% true!

  • Prasanna on June 9, 2013, 18:57 GMT

    @Gautam, shouldnt that be applicable to india as well, the team that didnt even make it to the semis of the last 2 CT tours ? Go play the qualifying rounds and earn your place !!

  • Dummy4 on June 9, 2013, 17:39 GMT

    Couldn't agree more with Jarrod. The fact that Bailey, who would never make it into the squads of any other team in the CT is Australia's best batsman speaks volumes about their lack of skill and talent. Australia probably needed to play a qualifying tournament before playing a champions trophy. Probably they got in because of past reputation

  • mukesh on June 9, 2013, 17:39 GMT

    @landl47-- agree with you , if there is one thing that stood out for Australia it was that they never gave up , of course this team is nowhere near the class of gilly,ponting,hauden and co but other than bailey others seems to be completely clueless. it was the same story in test series in India , where siddle of all people showed that even with limited technique you can make runs if you apply yourself , replacing warner with shaun marsh would be a good idea

  • Dummy4 on June 9, 2013, 17:08 GMT

    Best thing about baily is that he always smiles,,,, and worst thing about watson is that he never shines in crucial games,,,