Australia in India 2012-13 March 25, 2013

Clarke leads the way on disappointing tour

Australia's marks out of ten, for the Test series against India
76

8

Michael Clarke (286 runs at 47.66)

The only Australian to score a century on this tour, Clarke showed from the first day in Chennai how nimble footwork is key to handling Indian conditions. He scored 130 in that innings, and in the second innings was only done in by a nasty ball that stayed low and turned viciously. That was followed by 91 in the first innings in Hyderabad, which could have become another ton had he not tried to hit out when running out of partners. His move up the order to No. 3 in Mohali failed in the first innings, and in the second he was severely hampered by his back pain. Clarke was such a lone beacon for most of the series that India knew if they could get him, they had won half the battle.

6.5

Steven Smith (161 runs at 40.25, 1 wicket at 63.00)

Smith only played in Mohali because of the so-called homework sackings, but the Australians were immediately glad of his inclusion. His 92 in the first innings of that match showed that Clarke was not the only batsman in the side capable of using his feet. Smith was busy against the spinners and always looked confident, which couldn't be said for most of his team-mates. A mature 46 in the first innings in Delhi added to his value, but given how comfortable he looked, the Australians really needed him to go on and turn one of his innings into a big hundred. His part-time bowling was at times awful, but he produced one perfect legbreak to have Sachin Tendulkar caught at bat-pad in Mohali.

Peter Siddle (9 wickets at 33.88, 139 runs at 17.37)

Siddle had little impact in the first two Tests, but became an important player in the second half of the series. His 5 for 71 in Mohali prevented India from stretching their lead into triple figures, and in Delhi it was his batting that provided the greatest value. In his previous 40 Tests, Siddle had not scored a half-century, but he dug in to make 51 and 50, top scoring in both innings. Consequently, he became the first batsman in Test history to score half-centuries in both innings at No. 9. His efforts showed up his batting team-mates, and kept Australia in the contest.

6

Ed Cowan (265 runs at 33.12)

Although Cowan didn't build the big scores required of a Test opener, he at least showed his ability to learn. Early in the series he thought the best approach was to attack India's bowlers, but dancing down the wicket, attempting to go over the top, got him stumped in Chennai. In the next two Tests his scores and time at the crease grew as he changed tack, and chose to occupy time, forcing the Indians to get him out rather than getting himself out - although a poorly judged sweep in Delhi went against that reasoning. M Vijay was the only player from either team to face more balls in the series than Cowan, and his steadiness was admirable given the carnage that often took place around him.

James Pattinson (9 wickets at 27.77, 68 runs at 17.00)

The stand-out Australia bowler in Chennai with his 5 for 96 in the first innings, Pattinson used his pace through the air to challenge India's batsmen in spite of the slow pitch. There was no question that Pattinson was the most sorely missed of the four men dropped in Mohali for failing to complete a homework task set by coach Mickey Arthur, and when he returned in Delhi he didn't have quite the same impact. Like all of Australia's tail, he also showed plenty of fight with the bat.

Nathan Lyon (15 wickets at 37.33, 54 runs at 18.00)

The axing of Lyon for the second Test in Hyderabad was one of the most surprising selection strategies of the tour, for although he leaked copious runs in Chennai, he did pick up five wickets, and nobody could have controlled MS Dhoni in such an unconstrained frame of mind. In the final Test in Delhi, Lyon showed that he had learnt how to bowl in India, avoiding too full a length, and adopting an around-the-wicket line to the right-handed batsmen that brought lbws firmly into play. He collected nine wickets for the match, and it should have been ten but for a dropped catch by Matthew Wade. His resilience with the bat at No.11 showed up some of his top-order teammates as well.

5

Moises Henriques (156 runs at 31.20, 2 wickets at 77.50)

Chosen for his first Test in Chennai, Henriques showed remarkable resolve with the bat in both innings, and scored 68 and an unbeaten 81. Although he ran out of partners in the second innings, and missed the chance for a hundred on debut, he was the first Australian since 1979 to score a half-century in each innings of his first Test. However, his batting in Hyderabad and Mohali did not live up to his Chennai promise, and as a bowler he lacked penetration.

Mitchell Starc (2 wickets at 100.00, 145 runs at 36.25)

This may seem a generous mark for Starc given his failure with the ball, but it is a reflection of the fight and skill he showed with the bat in Mohali. In the first innings he very nearly became the second Australian centurion of the tour, but was caught behind for 99. His 35 in the second innings almost got Australia into a position from which they could dream of preventing an Indian win. His two wickets for the series came in one over during a spell of outstanding swing bowling, but when the ball wasn't moving, he was of little threat to India's batsmen.

4.5

Brad Haddin (51 runs at 25.50, 4 catches, 1 stumping)

Given another chance in Test cricket due to Wade's ankle injury in Mohali, Haddin was clean behind the stumps, and even found himself acting as on-field captain when Clarke was off having his sore back treated. He made starts in both innings but was unable to go on.

4

David Warner (195 runs at 24.37)

Despite making two half-centuries, Warner had the worst series of his short Test career. His 59 on the first day of the tour was scratchy, and his only innings of real note was 71 in Mohali, when he and Cowan put on 139 for the opening stand. Two edges from loose flashes outside off with no footwork in the first couple of overs in Mohali and Delhi, were especially ugly.

Glenn Maxwell (7 wickets at 27.57, 39 runs at 9.75)

The so-called "Big Show" had no impact with the bat, despite being promoted to open in the second innings in Delhi. He did manage to collect four wickets in Hyderabad, and three in Delhi, but has a long way to go before he can be considered a Test batting option.

3.5

Phillip Hughes (147 runs at 18.37)

For two and half Tests, Hughes was mesmerised by India's spin and the conditions, and at one stage had a drought of 58 deliveries against India's spinners without scoring a run. A new, more aggressive approach helped him in the second innings in Mohali, and he was unlucky to be lbw for 69 to a ball clearly missing leg. In Delhi he contributed 45 in the first innings.

Matthew Wade (113 runs at 18.83, 4 catches, 1 stumping)

One decent score - 62 in Hyderabad - was not what Australia needed from Wade after deciding he could serve as a top six batsman on this trip. He had an up-and-down time behind the stumps, sometimes making impressive saves, and on other occasions letting through byes that could have been stopped. Keeping wicket in India is tough, but his lack of footwork did not help his cause. Wade dropped a regulation chance when Dhoni edged Lyon in Delhi, and missed a couple of difficult stumping opportunities.

2

Shane Watson (99 runs at 16.50)

This was a hugely disappointing tour for Watson, who chose to embark on it as a specialist batsman in the hope of avoiding bowling injuries. Twice he was out pulling, which is risky on pitches with variable bounce, but found a number of other ways to lose his wicket as well. The homework saga and his reaction to it was Australia's off-field low point, and although he returned and was given the captaincy in Delhi, overall this series could hardly have gone worse for Watson.

Xavier Doherty (4 wickets at 60.50, 24 runs at 24.00)

A limited-overs bowler with limited weapons in the longer format, Doherty played in Hyderabad and Mohali, as the Australian selectors struggled to find their best attack. He was tighter than the other spinners but also far less of a threat.

0

Mitchell Johnson (0 wickets, 3 runs at 1.50)

Johnson's tour consisted of one Test, figures of 0 for 60, a golden duck, an innings of 3 that featured two close lbw shouts, a near run-out, and ended with a leave to a carrom ball that took off stump. He was also sloppy in the field, costing Australia a couple of boundary overthrows, and failed to complete a homework task. Enough said.

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • OneEyedAussie on March 26, 2013, 1:43 GMT

    Collectively the batsmen failed on this tour and barring Clarke all performed well below the standard of international cricket. This is largely due to only 4 specialist batsmen being selected per game when really it should have been 6 (5 if Watson had any kind of form coming into this series).

    Collectively, the bowlers were inconsistent and allowed India to make too many runs. Siddle looked good in the last two games, Pattinson looked good in the first two. Lyon found his mojo in the last game - I hope he returns to India again keeping in mind what he has learned.

    In short: Clarke, Siddle and Pattinson above average - Lyon average - and the rest below.

  • TeamRocker on March 27, 2013, 11:48 GMT

    Maxwell deserves less, he did nothing worth speaking of. Cowan was impressive, he deserved more. Siddle DEFINITELY deserved more, even if just for his batting in the last test. Varied his game beautifully for the conditions, and was sensible throughout his innings. Also bowled well in all four mathes, in truth.

  • TeamRocker on March 27, 2013, 11:43 GMT

    @Dashgar: Why should Khawaja be dropped? Poor guy didn't get a game. Smith should also be given more time, because he shows a lot of grit and some raw talent. Should be given an extended run (like he was earlier) because he HAS matured as a batsmen, even in the Shield.

    Squad for first match: Cowan, Warner/Doolan, Hughes, Ferguson, Clarke, Wade, Smith, Pattinson, Starc, Siddle, Faulkner I would probably give Doolan a go and see how well he goes. If he fails, bring back a Warner who has now experienced being dropped and has a bit more determination.

  • Greatest_Game on March 27, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    What is the reason that despite his increasingly bad performances, Warner is considered by almost every Aussie to be an automatic choice? Honestly, he is a liability as an opener. He exposes the middle order immediately in 8 out of 10 games. He gets by on the occasional performance on a flat track. Against Si Lanka he averaged below Hussey, Johnson, Clarke & Wade, & just above Hughes. Against SA he averaged under Clarke, Hussey, Pattinson & Cowan. He made one big score, & that on the flattest track of the tour. Where Cowan made 136, he made 4. His other scores were 119, 41, 13 & 29 - tour ave 41.2. That is just not consistent enough, or good enough. He does not have the discipline for a test opener, and he has been given a very long run. Success down the order means having openers who take the shine off the ball, put up some runs, and get the middle order set up for success. Warner does not. He is a liability in this team, and in the Ashes he will fail again.

  • AKS286 on March 27, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    @OneEyedAussie on (March 26, 2013, 1:43 GMT) A squib on the heaven of spin bowling by lyon and you called it MOJO.and also what does it mean "found"- He never done that before.@Meety on (March 27, 2013, 0:20 GMT) i understand your feelings towards lyon(cousin brother). But my point is that we all know Beer is consistant, steady & accurate similar like Jadeja's bowling don't you think he could be a good option. Lyon failed in all 4 departments 1.very few maidens not acceptable in tests. 2. gone for too many runs. 3. unable to create pressure. 4. except last test he failed to pick wickets on the spinner's dream pitches.

  • Wefinishthis on March 27, 2013, 3:17 GMT

    Now with the benefit of hindsight, we can pick the starting XI that would have statistically been the best for this series. It is as follows: Warner, Cowan, Smith, Henriques, Clarke, Starc(bat-only), Haddin, Lyon, Siddle, Pattinson, Maxwell(bowl-only). Statistically, this team still would have likely lost the series, but probably more like a 3-0 or 2-1 at best. This is why I was calling out BEFORE the series started that O'Keefe, Bird, D.Hussey, Rogers and Harris needed to play the first test. What a difference those guys would have made. Now this series will be remembered for the 4-0 thrashing and Arthur's lack of understanding for what's important. Discipline off the field does not matter in the history books, losses and embarrassing controversies like Homeworkgate do. Arthur caused both of those. Warne was famously ill-disciplined, but his ego was encouraged to be released on the field rather than try to destroy it. Is there any movement bring in Tim Coyle for Micky Mouse?

  • Meety on March 27, 2013, 0:20 GMT

    @AKS286 on (March 26, 2013, 9:33 GMT) - nobody told you Lyon was better than Warne, just better than BEER, the bloke you had a man-crush on! @ jezzastyles on (March 26, 2013, 5:53 GMT) - Cric Oz really needs to change up the FTP, no more tours of India PRIOR to an Ashes. It just leaves a poor form guide. For instance, I am a fan of Smith, & loved the fact that he batted well in India. I would without doubt, have him close to (or in), every side we send to the sub-continent (inc UAE tour v Pakistan not far away). However, I am doubtful, he will do as well against Eng in Eng. Cowan is sort of the opposite, I didn't want him selected for India - but he'd be the 1st opener I'd select for Eng conditions. Our pacers were blunted in hostile conditions for pacers, but will be infinately more dangerous in Eng conditions. This goes for any stupid 2-test tours prior to home Ashes as well! @thebrotherswaugh - Lyon's 1st tour of India, was better than Panesar & Swann, so he is worth stickin with!

  • johnathonjosephs on March 26, 2013, 23:29 GMT

    Would give Pattinson, Cowan, and Lyon a 7. Lyon bowled superbly throughout the series given that he was bowling to Indians (best players of spin) and to a formidable batting lineup in alien conditions. Pattinson should be given marks simply because he was very effective on subcontinent conditions (compare him to Ishant and Kumar). Cowan was simply the most consistent batsman out there (more consistent than Clark who made 3 good scores and 3 bad scores)

  • nakihunter on March 26, 2013, 19:54 GMT

    Chennai was a Dhoni tronado that no team could have survived. But team selection in Hyderabad was the BIG reason for a series disaster. Dropping Lynon and selecting Maxwell was crazy. Australia's strength was a top class fast bowling attack. Even when the batsmen are set they never dominated pattinson, Siddle or Stark. By messing with the team they ended up with a very poor attack where Doherty, Maxwell & Henriques were the envy of many club bowlers!

    Micky Arthur & co must be flogged for thinking they could win a test match in India with that attack.

    The Homework issue would have been a non-issue if the hyderabad test had been played with a good attack and the scores were more competitive.

  • AKS286 on March 26, 2013, 19:28 GMT

    Clarke out of 6 innings he was the victim of rookie jadeja 5 times. Aus lost its dominance in Test, Odis under the Clarke's captaincy. and in T20 always struggling. no problem with the team; the only problem is Clarke ego vs seniors & ponting's favourates.

  • OneEyedAussie on March 26, 2013, 1:43 GMT

    Collectively the batsmen failed on this tour and barring Clarke all performed well below the standard of international cricket. This is largely due to only 4 specialist batsmen being selected per game when really it should have been 6 (5 if Watson had any kind of form coming into this series).

    Collectively, the bowlers were inconsistent and allowed India to make too many runs. Siddle looked good in the last two games, Pattinson looked good in the first two. Lyon found his mojo in the last game - I hope he returns to India again keeping in mind what he has learned.

    In short: Clarke, Siddle and Pattinson above average - Lyon average - and the rest below.

  • TeamRocker on March 27, 2013, 11:48 GMT

    Maxwell deserves less, he did nothing worth speaking of. Cowan was impressive, he deserved more. Siddle DEFINITELY deserved more, even if just for his batting in the last test. Varied his game beautifully for the conditions, and was sensible throughout his innings. Also bowled well in all four mathes, in truth.

  • TeamRocker on March 27, 2013, 11:43 GMT

    @Dashgar: Why should Khawaja be dropped? Poor guy didn't get a game. Smith should also be given more time, because he shows a lot of grit and some raw talent. Should be given an extended run (like he was earlier) because he HAS matured as a batsmen, even in the Shield.

    Squad for first match: Cowan, Warner/Doolan, Hughes, Ferguson, Clarke, Wade, Smith, Pattinson, Starc, Siddle, Faulkner I would probably give Doolan a go and see how well he goes. If he fails, bring back a Warner who has now experienced being dropped and has a bit more determination.

  • Greatest_Game on March 27, 2013, 10:40 GMT

    What is the reason that despite his increasingly bad performances, Warner is considered by almost every Aussie to be an automatic choice? Honestly, he is a liability as an opener. He exposes the middle order immediately in 8 out of 10 games. He gets by on the occasional performance on a flat track. Against Si Lanka he averaged below Hussey, Johnson, Clarke & Wade, & just above Hughes. Against SA he averaged under Clarke, Hussey, Pattinson & Cowan. He made one big score, & that on the flattest track of the tour. Where Cowan made 136, he made 4. His other scores were 119, 41, 13 & 29 - tour ave 41.2. That is just not consistent enough, or good enough. He does not have the discipline for a test opener, and he has been given a very long run. Success down the order means having openers who take the shine off the ball, put up some runs, and get the middle order set up for success. Warner does not. He is a liability in this team, and in the Ashes he will fail again.

  • AKS286 on March 27, 2013, 8:21 GMT

    @OneEyedAussie on (March 26, 2013, 1:43 GMT) A squib on the heaven of spin bowling by lyon and you called it MOJO.and also what does it mean "found"- He never done that before.@Meety on (March 27, 2013, 0:20 GMT) i understand your feelings towards lyon(cousin brother). But my point is that we all know Beer is consistant, steady & accurate similar like Jadeja's bowling don't you think he could be a good option. Lyon failed in all 4 departments 1.very few maidens not acceptable in tests. 2. gone for too many runs. 3. unable to create pressure. 4. except last test he failed to pick wickets on the spinner's dream pitches.

  • Wefinishthis on March 27, 2013, 3:17 GMT

    Now with the benefit of hindsight, we can pick the starting XI that would have statistically been the best for this series. It is as follows: Warner, Cowan, Smith, Henriques, Clarke, Starc(bat-only), Haddin, Lyon, Siddle, Pattinson, Maxwell(bowl-only). Statistically, this team still would have likely lost the series, but probably more like a 3-0 or 2-1 at best. This is why I was calling out BEFORE the series started that O'Keefe, Bird, D.Hussey, Rogers and Harris needed to play the first test. What a difference those guys would have made. Now this series will be remembered for the 4-0 thrashing and Arthur's lack of understanding for what's important. Discipline off the field does not matter in the history books, losses and embarrassing controversies like Homeworkgate do. Arthur caused both of those. Warne was famously ill-disciplined, but his ego was encouraged to be released on the field rather than try to destroy it. Is there any movement bring in Tim Coyle for Micky Mouse?

  • Meety on March 27, 2013, 0:20 GMT

    @AKS286 on (March 26, 2013, 9:33 GMT) - nobody told you Lyon was better than Warne, just better than BEER, the bloke you had a man-crush on! @ jezzastyles on (March 26, 2013, 5:53 GMT) - Cric Oz really needs to change up the FTP, no more tours of India PRIOR to an Ashes. It just leaves a poor form guide. For instance, I am a fan of Smith, & loved the fact that he batted well in India. I would without doubt, have him close to (or in), every side we send to the sub-continent (inc UAE tour v Pakistan not far away). However, I am doubtful, he will do as well against Eng in Eng. Cowan is sort of the opposite, I didn't want him selected for India - but he'd be the 1st opener I'd select for Eng conditions. Our pacers were blunted in hostile conditions for pacers, but will be infinately more dangerous in Eng conditions. This goes for any stupid 2-test tours prior to home Ashes as well! @thebrotherswaugh - Lyon's 1st tour of India, was better than Panesar & Swann, so he is worth stickin with!

  • johnathonjosephs on March 26, 2013, 23:29 GMT

    Would give Pattinson, Cowan, and Lyon a 7. Lyon bowled superbly throughout the series given that he was bowling to Indians (best players of spin) and to a formidable batting lineup in alien conditions. Pattinson should be given marks simply because he was very effective on subcontinent conditions (compare him to Ishant and Kumar). Cowan was simply the most consistent batsman out there (more consistent than Clark who made 3 good scores and 3 bad scores)

  • nakihunter on March 26, 2013, 19:54 GMT

    Chennai was a Dhoni tronado that no team could have survived. But team selection in Hyderabad was the BIG reason for a series disaster. Dropping Lynon and selecting Maxwell was crazy. Australia's strength was a top class fast bowling attack. Even when the batsmen are set they never dominated pattinson, Siddle or Stark. By messing with the team they ended up with a very poor attack where Doherty, Maxwell & Henriques were the envy of many club bowlers!

    Micky Arthur & co must be flogged for thinking they could win a test match in India with that attack.

    The Homework issue would have been a non-issue if the hyderabad test had been played with a good attack and the scores were more competitive.

  • AKS286 on March 26, 2013, 19:28 GMT

    Clarke out of 6 innings he was the victim of rookie jadeja 5 times. Aus lost its dominance in Test, Odis under the Clarke's captaincy. and in T20 always struggling. no problem with the team; the only problem is Clarke ego vs seniors & ponting's favourates.

  • Sinhaya on March 26, 2013, 12:40 GMT

    Lack of centuries and partnerships were the root cause behind Australia's downfall. These 2 are absolutely paramount to at least prevent yourself from losing a test match. Congratulations to India for an excellent performance.

  • Dashgar on March 26, 2013, 11:57 GMT

    Very generous the score for Watson. I think .5 was more accurate. I believe 9 people deserve to be dropped after this tour. Watson, Johnson, Doherty, Henriques, Smith, Maxwell, Khawaja, Haddin and Mickey Arthur. In their place I'd take Ryan Harris, George Bailey, Callum Ferguson, James Faulkner and Tim Paine (only need 15 in the squad) to England with Darren Lehmann the new coach.

  • on March 26, 2013, 10:24 GMT

    Anyone else agree with me that this is a but harsh on Pattinson? Getting these bowling stats as a quick in India, especially a five-for, isn't easy, so he should have got about half a point more than Siddle, who I also like. Not too bad in the lower order either. Looking forward to the Ashes - with neither us nor Australia in top shape it could be another tight one like in 2009.

  • AKS286 on March 26, 2013, 9:33 GMT

    @Posted by Someguy on (March 26, 2013, 0:36 GMT) About the captaincy of clarke We never saw Aus struggling like this, i really afraid with the result when Oz tour to Bangladesh. I think Katich, Hussey, Ponting, haddin, hauritz, MJ, Watson, marsh, paine & jimmy Anderson will define clarke's captaincy. Since the debut of lyon many Oz fans told me that he better than Warne, Mcgill, murli, gibbs, Ajmal, Swanny. fella cricket is playing on ground not on Paper.

  • AKS286 on March 26, 2013, 9:27 GMT

    @Posted by Someguy on (March 26, 2013, 0:36 GMT) Your thinking is very good when we play paper cricket. S.Marsh's technique & temperament is far better than hughes. remember hayden & monty performance in Ind and check their records before tour. form is temporary fella but class is permanent. Beer is steady & accurate with his bowling which we saw in Jadeja's bowling.

  • Webba84 on March 26, 2013, 9:17 GMT

    Id say this is extremely harsh to Johnson. Only playing in the last test, and on a track unsuited to fast bowling he was always going to be wayward and the fact is he bowled very threatening balls without luck, many which went to the boundary because you have rated Wade too highly. If he had played every match he could well have been Australia's leading wicket taker this series. We will never know.

  • Someguy on March 26, 2013, 7:16 GMT

    @thebrotherswaugh - I don't understand why you can't see Hughes doing well in England. He averaged 80+ last county season I believe, batting mostly at 4. He was the leading run scorer in shield cricket before joined the test squad. I don't see any reason why his poor form against quality spin in India will reflect how he plays mostly fast bowlers in England.

  • on March 26, 2013, 6:56 GMT

    Hughes is definitely a flat track bully.A hint of spin or swing he is a gonner.He should get his technique sorted out against both spin and swing before he plays another test match for Australia

  • thebrotherswaugh on March 26, 2013, 6:35 GMT

    Firstly, congrats to India. You can only play as well as the opposition lets you - and nearly every time that AUS started to get some ascendancy, IND kicked us back down. They were merciless and very good. Siddle was our best - and Clarke missed yet another last test in a series due to injury - no wonder the back's going, it's all that carrying of the rest of the batsmen (aka cannon-fodder in India). Spot-on from @Meety, we must stick by Lyon now, and back him on the next tour to India. Lessons learnt & all that. Watson has not lived up to his potential, especially the last 2 years. Can't see Hughes doing much in England, but hope I'm wrong, cause if he does fire, it will go a long way to reversing the rot in our batting list.

  • Sunil_Batra on March 26, 2013, 6:11 GMT

    My views on this are simple. The problem with this Australian batting line up . other than that Clarke needs to bat at least at 4,is the opening partnership. Australia for decades has succeeded because it has had a strong opening partnership that scores runs. You'll get 50+ on average about once in three innings from Warner. You'll get better than that with Hughes. You wont get that with Cowan. Simple arithmetic. Hughes and Warner to open. Khawaja should come in at 3(give the solid leftie his chance). A solid run scoring start gets Oz off to a good start and slows down the opposition bowling.Henriques should be persisted with longer as he has potential and has only had 3 games. Faulkner's erformances throughout the Shield season and especially in the final deserve a seat on the plane and he demonstrates a great sense of seizing the moment as shown also in his ODI and T20I efforts.Lyon is the only Test quality off spinner and should be taken but he will need support(i.e Holland or SOA)

  • SamRoy on March 26, 2013, 6:11 GMT

    Australia will be better served without Ryan Harris in the Ashes even though he is the best bowler in Australia and a genuine world class bowler; he can break down any day and is already close to 34.

  • jezzastyles on March 26, 2013, 5:53 GMT

    I have no problem with the ratings. @Meety - as always, intelligent & insightful comments. Hughes will do better in ENG - if he's batting at #3, I certainly hope so. But as soon as the pill starts to deck around and swing (and it will), the entire batting lineup will struggle in England. Might help if we had a few guys who could string together some big scores in a 2nd innings - Clarke's average in 2nd innings must be pretty poor as all of his scores are in the 1st innings, and he's the only world-class batsmen in the side. Our bowlers might bowl decently over there (if they're available or not being wrapped in cotton wool), but what kind of totals will they be defending? Siddle & Clarke should be our standouts. Unfortunately, it'll be a long hard tour, I reckon. Note to selectors: 1-day form or 20/20 form doesn't translate to test match form; why persist with Watson - he's not a Test class batsmen or bowler, and he'll break down if he bowls with any regularity.

  • Mary_786 on March 26, 2013, 5:38 GMT

    For me Australian cricket is suffering from a flawed philosophy, a flawed strategic plan. It starts at Cricket Australia board level & permeates down through the Chief Executive Officer, High Performance Manager, National Selection Panel, Support staff of coach & sports scientists to the captain.This must be a terrible time for any young player to be trying to fulfill your dream of simply playing cricket for your country. A good example is Khawaja, one of our best batsman and despite our batting failures doesn't get to play in India. Quiney might be wondering if he gets any further chances. Insidious politics, flaky ideology & conflicting agendas pervade every strata of Australian cricket at present.

  • sidharth_madhav on March 26, 2013, 4:58 GMT

    Mr. Coverdale, what is your scoring methodology? Are these arbitrary numbers you assigned? Is this an absolute value or Or is this relative? It is a bit misleading when you see the points allocated for India and then for Australia. Does leadership/captaincy performance carry any points? If so, Clarke does not seem to merit that 8. Some blame has to fall on him for the 'Homework gate' episode and for leaving out Lyon from the Hyderabad test.

  • Mad_Hamish on March 26, 2013, 3:23 GMT

    Cioverdale had actually watched the matches he might rate Johson somewhat higher. He beat the bat a fair bit in the first innings and got a lot of nicks that didn't go to hand (btw Wade if the ball is consistantly bouncing in front of you move closer to the stumps) and caused batsmen a fair amount of trouble with his pace and bounce being the most economical bowler and keeping pressure on. If mistakes in the field cost you rating points Wade has to be negative...

  • vsssarma on March 26, 2013, 1:56 GMT

    My computer provides the following ratings: Siddle 8.82; Starc 8.77; Clarke 8.45; Lyon 8.38; Pattinson 8.35; Smith 8.34; Henriques 8.20; Maxwell 8.12; Cowan 7.98; Haddin 7.94; Doherty 4.43; Warner 4.28; Wade 3.86; Hughes 3.53; Watson 3.08; Johnson 0.

  • Meety on March 26, 2013, 1:25 GMT

    @Planetindia on (March 25, 2013, 14:34 GMT) - evidence suggests that neither Swann or Panesar will be as much of a threat against Oz in England. If the series was played in India we'd have a problems. If Swann & Panesar is amongst the wickets we will have seen off the pacers. Way too early for Silk. @ygkd on (March 25, 2013, 20:36 GMT) - he was definately dropped twice (Silk), but it was a marathon knock & was pleasing in that unlike most of his contemporaries he SEEMS to value his wicket. However, 2 or 3 Shield games is not enuff for a batsmen to play Tests. Send him on the A-tour, keep him away from the BBL, & in 12 mths we COULD have a real talent on our hands. We could BORE teams to death with a Cowan/Silk opening partnership!

  • on March 26, 2013, 1:24 GMT

    Her's a thought how will D Warner go batting at 5 or 6 in tests an open in odi's an 20/20?

  • Someguy on March 26, 2013, 0:54 GMT

    @OzWally - the 3 allrounders that can't bat or bowl, I assume you are talking about Watson, Maxwell and Henriques. Smith is not an allrounder, he gave up on that and now just considers himself a batsman, and considering he was arguably the best batsman in the team other than Clarke, I don't see an issue with his selection.

    Henriques averaged 77 with the bat and 14 wickets @18 with the ball during the Shefield Shield. How good does someones form have to be before you consider them to be able to bat and bowl? He was also the only seamer to take any wickets in the tour matches in India, then showed in the first test that he is capable with the bat. I think he will do well in English conditions.

    I will agree that Maxwell is nowhere near test standard and Watson should not be batting in the top 5, or be anywhere near the squad if he is not bowling. He is not a test standard batsman, but makes a decent bowling allrounder.

  • Someguy on March 26, 2013, 0:38 GMT

    @Tony Hughes - Agree totally, Wade should be kept for limited overs cricket, like Watson. Paine is much better with the gloves and has a better temperament for test batting also.

    Mitch Johnson is too hot and cold for test cricket, why persist with someone who has 1 good game in 5?

  • Someguy on March 26, 2013, 0:36 GMT

    @AKS286 - the idea is for Australia to win the ashes. You don't drop under performing players for people in worse form with less experience.

    Klinger and Marsh averaged under 20 this season, Forrest 20.3. Watson is just as bad, barely averaging over 20 for the last 2 years.

    Why drop Lyon? He's doing alright and Beer/Boyce have done nothing of note.

    Hughes was leading run scorer this year before joining the test squad and will do a lot better in England and Australia, why drop him based on poor form on Indian dust bowls?

    Do you actually follow Australian cricket, or are you just pulling out names at random?

  • shrek_k on March 26, 2013, 0:35 GMT

    Pretty disappointing ratings really. Clarke @ 8 is too high. It seems that only his batting seems to have been taken into account. How about his performance as a captain and selector. Not bowling Pattison enough in Chennai, Dropping Lyon and other poor selections in Hyderabad, the mis-handling of the homework saga(Note: I am not saying the axing is correct or wrong, but it was definitely poorly managed). I think they have to factor in his score as well.

  • Someguy on March 26, 2013, 0:23 GMT

    @Robert Roemer - I assume you are close personal friends with members of the squad to be able to say this with such authority? How many of them have confided in you that they don't want to play under Clarke?

    You have spent a lot of time in the Australian locker room over the last 4 decades to know how all the captains have interacted with the team?

  • Ms.Cricket on March 26, 2013, 0:23 GMT

    Subtract 2 from each person's marks (including Johnson's) to get the correct figure.

  • Someguy on March 26, 2013, 0:19 GMT

    @Planetindia - What an absurd lineup. Most of the squad struggled in Indian conditions, that doesn't mean they should all be dropped for people with little to no experience.

    Silk has only played a handful of first-class games. Cosgrove is about 30kg overweight and what have Faulkner and Butterworth done that makes them better than Starc, Siddle or Bird?

    The only change you have made that makes any sense at all it dropping Wade for Paine.

  • xylo on March 26, 2013, 0:03 GMT

    In my opinion, the differences between India's 0-4 in Australia and Australia's 0-4 in India are vast, and the true effects will be felt in the next tour. While Australia lost 0-4, their players will come back wiser and shrewder the next time around. As for India, the players who were part of the team will be in the commentary box, while a green set of players will be caught like deer in headlights.

  • Moz. on March 25, 2013, 23:53 GMT

    Whilst the selection panel does need to accept a lot of blame in this debacle, it is worth remembering how much worse it was a few short years ago when the only question they asked was, "Do you (even only occasionally) play for NSW?".

  • on March 25, 2013, 23:44 GMT

    -2 for Clarke for not bowling on this tour, I was very much impressed with his bowling in the Mumbai Test where Indians picked up an astonishing victory. He has also bowled for Pune Warriors in the IPL recently. He should have bowled with Lyon from the other end.

  • MinusZero on March 25, 2013, 23:25 GMT

    What should be taken from this series is: Maxwell is not a test player, nor is Watson. Mitchell Johnson should be placed in the "not to be selected again" pile along with Doherty. It also showed that Cowan has the resolve and patience to be a test batsman and showed that Warner's lack of resolve and patience is a risk as a test opener.

  • heathrf1974 on March 25, 2013, 23:22 GMT

    Paine and Haddin should be in the Ashes side ahead of Wade. I thought Hughes showed some fight towards the second half of the series as opposed to Warner who was foolish. I think recent form should count more that latter. My players in rough order are Clarke, Siddle, Smith, Pattinson, Lyon, Cowan, Starc, Maxwell, Haddin, Henriques, Hughes, Warner, Wade, Doherty, Watson, Johnson.

    One special mention should go to Cowan, although he is not the flashiest player he's got fight and selectors should remember players who perform in tests that we struggle in.

  • Edwards_Anderson on March 25, 2013, 23:09 GMT

    This is a joke, so the guys who failed in this tour get pay upgrades and we wonder why we are getting smashed. India just didn't whitewash anyone, but the cricket once powerhouse of Australia.I refuse to accept the pitches as an excuse for our defeat. Those seeking to dismiss the 4-0 whitewash in terms of the pitches are in denial.Australia won the toss in all four tests & should have enjoyed the best of the conditions on each occasion. Also, past Australian fast bowlers have found a way to succeed on spinner friendly Indian pitches. Not to mention past Australian batsmen.Not having Khawaja in the lineup was a serious selection blunder and one which needs to be rectified for the ashes.Lyon proved he is our best spinner but time to bring in someone like Holland or Beer to replace Doherty. Australian cricket has some serious problems it must attend to. Does it want a T20 future, or a test cricket future, for example? At present CA is seduced by the easy money to be made from T20.

  • Amith_S on March 25, 2013, 23:02 GMT

    Are part time bit bowler bit batsman. No room for them. 2) Don't value their wicket. Looking at you Hughes. Surely it was their homework to play the 'v' after a few tests on those ducty indian pitches. For Watson to get out the way he did is nothing more then mind boggling. For Warner to get out the way he did in last three innings was shocking too. Windy woof outside off stump without any sighters to get his eye in. Or playing against the line to a spinner. when the situation was to dig in. 3) Forget about selecting on potential. Select the best team available. Khawaja should have been in the team and his non selection cost us. HOw did big show make the team, its more a no show. 4) Pick players for the conditions.

  • mcj.cricinfo on March 25, 2013, 22:38 GMT

    Maxwell should been rated 1.5, he got most of his wickets when India were over 500 runs and going for the smash. Batting was rubbish.

    Selection for the tour was poor. Shouldn't have taken Doherty, Maxwell, Smith or Henriques. It was more luck than good management that Smith did well, and Henriques had one good test.

    Clarke, Watson, Haddin, Siddle and Johnson the only players to have experienced Indian test conditions, so it was somewhat expected that most players would struggle with the conditions. Happy to see Lyon going around the wicket and attacking the stumps. Good work.

  • on March 25, 2013, 22:05 GMT

    So, it's all over, and Australia received the drubbing that was expected, and that they deserved. The spotlight is now very firmly on several players. Should Warner, Watson, Wade, Maxwell and Johnson even be chosen for the Ashes tour then it will certainly be make or break for them. The Shield final is certainly throwing up some names. Paine, Faulkner, Butterworth and possibly Doolan could all be considered, while the Queensland quicks and Joe Burns are worthy of consideration.Then there's Steve O'Keefe - surely his time has come to be the foil for Lyon. Congrats to Steve Smith on his efforts. Can't understand why people continue to criticise him. Next to Clarke, he was the only one who looked like he had a clue against the spinners. Real talent and promise should be encouraged and rewarded, not criticised and denigrated. A good starting twelve for the Ashes Tests would be Cowan, Hughes, Khawaja, Clarke, Smith, Paine, Henriques,Siddle, Pattinson, Starc, Lyon and O'Keefe.

  • landl47 on March 25, 2013, 21:52 GMT

    Fairly generous marks for a side which didn't take any of the tests into a fifth day. Howver, as a comparative rating of the players against each other, it seems about right. Now, if Cowan could give Warner some of his determination, or Warner could give Cowan some of his ability.....

  • on March 25, 2013, 21:19 GMT

    @ righthandbat .... can't help but think that Quiney have been burnt forever by the ACB after the SA Fiasco. Cosgrove has too many skin folds!!!

  • on March 25, 2013, 21:18 GMT

    I think it's pretty hard to assign ratings to any of the team members because of their total inconsistency. There were two players who produced consistent performances worthy of the Australian team in this tour - Pattinson and Siddle. Some players started the series well but ended up tailing off, eg Henriques, Clarke. Others started poorly but then improved as the series progressed, eg Cowan, Hughes (I was gutted for both of them when they got some poor decisions when they were finally finding some form) and Lyon. Others have been consistently terrible - Doherty, Watson, Wade (can't keep in Indian conditions).

  • on March 25, 2013, 21:14 GMT

    8 is pretty high for M Clarke. He can get at most 7.

    Dropping the Aus best spinner for the 2nd test is the dumpest. -2 points for that.

  • ElPhenomeno on March 25, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    smudgeon, I guess if only Ian bell could start pulling like ricky ponting, we can go ahead and imply Bell is the next ponting.

  • on March 25, 2013, 20:48 GMT

    Planetindia wrote; "Swann and Monty will be dangerous in the england." It's pretty rare that England play both spinners at home. Even in UAE against Pakistan the previous winter they just played Swann in the first Test - and then made the same mistake again in India this winter. Also, at the moment, we don't even know if Swann will be fit and bowling well - he is recovering from surgery on his elbow. If he is not fit, maybe Tredwell may come in to contention.

  • OzWally on March 25, 2013, 20:44 GMT

    How about also grading the selectors. They left the best spinner back in Australia, O'Keefe. They left all specialist bats back home that have been performing, Burns, Doolan & Rogers in favor of 3 all-rounders that can't bat or bowl. Then drop their only spinner that can take a wicket for the 2nd test. Automatically give Watson a spot in the XI when he's done nothing to prove himself in the long form for over a year. Leaving us with a team that has less test match experience combined than Sachin. How could you expect this series to be a success?

    4-0 is exactly what they (the selectors) deserved. That being said, playing in England will be far more to this team's liking. English conditions will play into our fast bowling strengths. I just wish we could have "blooded" another top order bat (to replace Watson, unless he can bowl - strike that, he'll break down after 1 test) and I'm still not convinced Smith is the real deal. And Wade can't bat higher than 7.

  • righthandbat on March 25, 2013, 20:39 GMT

    Australia should be looking to their shield final for talent - it's there - in the form of Silk, Cosgrove, Doolan, Paine, Butterworth and Faulkner from TAS (not to mention RT Ponting) and Burns and Harris in particular from QLD. Rogers, Quiney (yes he had one bad series when selected) and Ahmed from Vic and then Steve O'Keefe from NSW. These are all viable selections and at least some of them hopefully will be at the Ashes.

  • ygkd on March 25, 2013, 20:36 GMT

    Silk has played well in the SS final. However, if I remember correctly, there were one or two missed opportunities to take his wicket, he didn't play quite as straight as one might think and his strike rate was similar to that of a stonewaller on sleeping pills. Sending him to England would be perfectly consistent with Australia's recent selection policies however, for that is largely based on taking a group of young possibles and throwing them in the deep end, while insisting that they are, like the Titanic, unsinkable. And that is exactly why, like the Titanic, Australia sunk, only this time everybody should have seen the danger coming. By saying this, there is no reflection on the young Tasmanian at all. If he isn't ready, he isn't ready. Leave him where he is for a few years and then take another look. The average age of the current team is too low anyhow.

  • on March 25, 2013, 20:35 GMT

    Can we now rate the decisions of our worthless selection panel??

  • smudgeon on March 25, 2013, 20:30 GMT

    ElPhenomeno, it's an unfortunate fact that any left-armer who shows a bit of swing will inevitably be compared with Akram. Bit unfair on anyone who isn't Akram, huh?

  • on March 25, 2013, 20:24 GMT

    These scores are non justified. Clarke should have got 10 out ot 10. After all he had a 100 % record at winning the tosses somethinh which is opposite number could not boast of...

  • righthandbat on March 25, 2013, 20:23 GMT

    Clarke did not deserve his high mark this time. Siddle was the best of the lot.

  • ProdigyA on March 25, 2013, 20:21 GMT

    0 for Mitch, thats a bit harsh, could have given him 1 atleast for the beard he was trying to sport. lol

  • on March 25, 2013, 20:21 GMT

    @ palla.avinash .... correct!!! Clarke's average would have been in the low 30's if it wasn't for his non-dismissal. So :

    a) -0.5 for that?? b) -1.0 for poor captaincy?? c) -1.0 for tearing the team apart?? d) -1.0 for tour/test selection??

    Pattinson should at least have been level with Siddle .... same batting average, same wickets, lower bowling average. Wasn't his fault that Clarke wouldn't bowl him on the 2nd Day of 1st Test!! 6.5

    Wade, how many dropped catches or missed stumpings?? Haddin took same amount of dismissals in one test. Cannot fathom why he was selected for the tour. 2.0

    Haddin 5.5

    Maxwell took wickets when India was throwing them away!! Cannot fathom why he was selected for the tour. 2.0

    Lyon .... best bowler of the tour and again held the bat well!! Could have collected well over 20-Wickets with a better keeper and the dumb decision to play Maxwell in 2nd Test. 7.0

    Cowan .... best batsman on tour and some unlucky LBW's. 6.5

  • spindizzy on March 25, 2013, 20:18 GMT

    You're being far to generous to Clarke and to Hughes. Both failed at crucial times and Clarke is a liability as a selector and someone who backs the poor thinking of the clueless coach. Hughes is just deeply flawed and should never have be re-included in the team.

  • ElPhenomeno on March 25, 2013, 19:57 GMT

    I still find it obscenely offensive that a writer on this site actually once implied Mitchell Johnson was like Wasim Akram.

  • DeckChairand6pack on March 25, 2013, 19:52 GMT

    I'm going to stick my neck out here and predict that this year's Ashes will be won by the team that is least rubbish. Boy it's going to be a close one! On the plus side, it may motivate me to muck out and paint the shed this summer.

  • Front-Foot-Lunge on March 25, 2013, 19:19 GMT

    This was the tour that the Clarke Saga blew up spectacularly in Australia's face. Time and again for so many years now both fans and critics have been urging Clarke to stop hiding down the order and play for the team not for himself. Time and again he was labelled as running scared of moving above the safety of 5 or 6 because his technique wasn't good enough. And then it finally happened: Clarke moved out of the bubble of the middle order, only to....Fail spectacularly. His technique was proved not up to the challenge. His captaincy proved a failure. His man-managing the worst Australia had seen. Hussey etc left because they couldn't get on with him. Whitewashed. By the same India England thrashed just before. There was no repeat of 2011 (when England set up India on a plate for Aus to take). Only a tour that showed Australia's complete lack of skill in all departments and an officially (as if it wasn't already obvious) empty cupboard. Australia need a new captain.

  • Matt. on March 25, 2013, 18:34 GMT

    As a half glass full sort of guy, i see it as a significant positive that the selectors will be unlikely to take Mitchell Johnson to England for the ashes

  • on March 25, 2013, 17:25 GMT

    Why do so many people rate Wade so highly? He's a decent enough batsman but as a w/k he's had a terrible series. You have to include Wade and either Haddin and/or Paine for the Ashes.

    It's the end for Mitch; we could see it, Mickey A could see it, even Mitch knows the game's up. His nonchalant fielding summed up where he is with his career: directionless.

  • AKS286 on March 25, 2013, 17:23 GMT

    Same team will perform good & provide better competition beyond Sub-Continent. The only thing CA must concern is the just take captaincy from Clarke. He divided the team into Clarke's Boy & seniors. Don't give such comments like "We are with you PuP in bad days" change you attitude to "We are with you Australia in bad days". Klinger, Watson (C), Marsh(VC), Clarke, Ferguson/Forrest, Paine/Haddin,Smith, MJ, pattinson, Siddle, Beer/Boyce .

  • blink182alex on March 25, 2013, 16:57 GMT

    I think Haddin needs to replace Wade in the test side, let Wade play odi's if you want but in tests he just drops too many catches. Yes he can bat and has already scored 2 100's but we are not going to be in a position against England where we can afford to drop catches, Haddin isn't as good as Hartley or Paine in terms of just keeping from what i've seen but would be a solid option who also has experience and success in England. Wade looked suspect to swing in the odi tour there last year also. We need to stop picking a team for the future and just pick the best test side for the present, give some of the future guys like Wade,Faulkner, Maxwell etc some experience in odi's.

  • on March 25, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    -1 marks from each player and it will be the right scores, except for Clarke, he prob deserves the 8 he got.

  • palla.avinash on March 25, 2013, 16:41 GMT

    Clarke 8 points non sense the century he scored he was given not out twice clearly out and never mentioned it here,he was bunny of left arm spin ravindhra jedeja and i can bet if there is good left arm spinner and pressure from other side Clarke wont get even hundreds left arm spin is way to go towards Clarke.

  • on March 25, 2013, 16:03 GMT

    If you have a leader that you find inspiring, look up to and admire, you lift a cog or even a few. Clarke has the absolutel opposite effect; good players are playing poorly because they simply don't want to play under him, and I think the fact that he is playing out of his skin because he realises this makes it rather obvious. But people are seeing it otherwise; brilliant captain, rubbish players. Yes they aren't great, but they also aren't *that* bad. Clarke may be an ok captain on-field but in terms of player relationships I think he is poor - the worst I have ever seen anyway, and that is spanning 4 decades.

  • Green_and_Gold on March 25, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    Perhaps time to put the keeper back at No.7 and play 6 specialist batsman and 4 bowlers. Time to bat long and put some real runs on the board then give our bowling attack something to defend.

  • glovescarf on March 25, 2013, 15:53 GMT

    If the Australian selectors were to sick with the same group of players for the Ashes then a possible line-up could be: Cowan, Warner, Hughes, Clarke, Watson, Smith, Wade, Starc, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon. The bowling is pretty competitive with the likes of Bird, Cummins, Johnson, Faulkner and Hilfenhaus in reserve. Worrying though is the lack of depth in batting and looking at this season's Sheffield Shield averages there are few stand out performers. It may be that Australia will have to stick with what they have for now and hope they come good or go for a young rookie like Silk which would be a big gamble.

  • on March 25, 2013, 15:09 GMT

    How on earth does Maxwell get more points than Hughes? Maxwell would be a "1" at best. 6.5 for Steve Smith based on a one innings on a batting beauty? Generous. Ed Cowan would be more of a 5 than a 6 because his innings or stay at the crease never has an impact on the game. Overall I feel Coverdale has been a bit generous almost out of pity.. 4-0 is a good reflection of where the teams are at the moment.

  • handyandy on March 25, 2013, 14:50 GMT

    Somewhat generous marks in my opinion.

    Five out of ten would be a pass. In my opinion probably only Clarke, Siddle, and perhaps Smith and Pattinson deserve pass marks for this series.

  • on March 25, 2013, 14:37 GMT

    Steven Smith is one of the few positives for Australia in this series. He has provn himself valuable in IPL and now he has shown that he has talent for longer format also. Was surprised when he was not got picked up for first two tests... PS: Where are marks for Khawaja????

  • Planetindia on March 25, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    This was a bad series but it was better lesson for AUS before Ashes. Swann and Monty will be dangerous in the england. If they want to win Ashes back then they should remove Watson and Hughes. they should go with : Silk, Warner, Cosgrove, Clark, Cowen, Pain, S.Smith, Faulkner, Pettinson, Butterworth, Lyon

  • Planetindia on March 25, 2013, 14:34 GMT

    This was a bad series but it was better lesson for AUS before Ashes. Swann and Monty will be dangerous in the england. If they want to win Ashes back then they should remove Watson and Hughes. they should go with : Silk, Warner, Cosgrove, Clark, Cowen, Pain, S.Smith, Faulkner, Pettinson, Butterworth, Lyon

  • on March 25, 2013, 14:37 GMT

    Steven Smith is one of the few positives for Australia in this series. He has provn himself valuable in IPL and now he has shown that he has talent for longer format also. Was surprised when he was not got picked up for first two tests... PS: Where are marks for Khawaja????

  • handyandy on March 25, 2013, 14:50 GMT

    Somewhat generous marks in my opinion.

    Five out of ten would be a pass. In my opinion probably only Clarke, Siddle, and perhaps Smith and Pattinson deserve pass marks for this series.

  • on March 25, 2013, 15:09 GMT

    How on earth does Maxwell get more points than Hughes? Maxwell would be a "1" at best. 6.5 for Steve Smith based on a one innings on a batting beauty? Generous. Ed Cowan would be more of a 5 than a 6 because his innings or stay at the crease never has an impact on the game. Overall I feel Coverdale has been a bit generous almost out of pity.. 4-0 is a good reflection of where the teams are at the moment.

  • glovescarf on March 25, 2013, 15:53 GMT

    If the Australian selectors were to sick with the same group of players for the Ashes then a possible line-up could be: Cowan, Warner, Hughes, Clarke, Watson, Smith, Wade, Starc, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon. The bowling is pretty competitive with the likes of Bird, Cummins, Johnson, Faulkner and Hilfenhaus in reserve. Worrying though is the lack of depth in batting and looking at this season's Sheffield Shield averages there are few stand out performers. It may be that Australia will have to stick with what they have for now and hope they come good or go for a young rookie like Silk which would be a big gamble.

  • Green_and_Gold on March 25, 2013, 16:01 GMT

    Perhaps time to put the keeper back at No.7 and play 6 specialist batsman and 4 bowlers. Time to bat long and put some real runs on the board then give our bowling attack something to defend.

  • on March 25, 2013, 16:03 GMT

    If you have a leader that you find inspiring, look up to and admire, you lift a cog or even a few. Clarke has the absolutel opposite effect; good players are playing poorly because they simply don't want to play under him, and I think the fact that he is playing out of his skin because he realises this makes it rather obvious. But people are seeing it otherwise; brilliant captain, rubbish players. Yes they aren't great, but they also aren't *that* bad. Clarke may be an ok captain on-field but in terms of player relationships I think he is poor - the worst I have ever seen anyway, and that is spanning 4 decades.

  • palla.avinash on March 25, 2013, 16:41 GMT

    Clarke 8 points non sense the century he scored he was given not out twice clearly out and never mentioned it here,he was bunny of left arm spin ravindhra jedeja and i can bet if there is good left arm spinner and pressure from other side Clarke wont get even hundreds left arm spin is way to go towards Clarke.

  • on March 25, 2013, 16:43 GMT

    -1 marks from each player and it will be the right scores, except for Clarke, he prob deserves the 8 he got.

  • blink182alex on March 25, 2013, 16:57 GMT

    I think Haddin needs to replace Wade in the test side, let Wade play odi's if you want but in tests he just drops too many catches. Yes he can bat and has already scored 2 100's but we are not going to be in a position against England where we can afford to drop catches, Haddin isn't as good as Hartley or Paine in terms of just keeping from what i've seen but would be a solid option who also has experience and success in England. Wade looked suspect to swing in the odi tour there last year also. We need to stop picking a team for the future and just pick the best test side for the present, give some of the future guys like Wade,Faulkner, Maxwell etc some experience in odi's.