We all have opinions on Australian cricket selections.
Who should be in the team, who should be out and who deserves another opportunity.
That pressure comes with representing Australia, but it should not rest entirely on the players. Scrutiny falls on the coach, selectors, and those running the team. That is how it has always been, and how it will be.
The recall of Matt Renshaw for the second Test against Bangladesh is a good selection for several reasons, and one many have been calling for a while.
Renshaw has been in and out of the Australian system since making his Test debut as a 20-year-old in 2016. He has been dropped, recalled, moved around the batting order and forced to return to domestic cricket to work on his game.
After scoring 499 Sheffield Shield runs at an average just under 50 last season, he has earned another opportunity.
There could be some really good Test years ahead of him. His journey has elements of the Mike Hussey story, not because their careers are identical, but because Renshaw returns as a more mature player who has done the hard work away from the international spotlight.
To be honest, I would also have been comfortable with Jake Weatherald playing one more Test match. Six Tests is not a huge sample, and he was hardly the only Australian who failed during the nine-wicket defeat in Darwin.
However, Renshaw’s selection is deserved.
The selection that surprised me was Marnus Labuschagne.
Maybe he will not make the final XI and Josh Inglis will come into the side, potentially at No.3. But Labuschagne remains in the squad and appears likely to retain one of the most important positions in the batting order.
The statistics are clear. Labuschagne has not made a Test century in 22 matches. Scoring hundreds is a fairly important part of the job when you are an experienced No.3 batter.
I have heard the argument that Australia has lost only one Test and people should not panic. This is about much more than one loss and the big picture, Australia’s Test cricket future.
Concerns about this team have been building for the past couple of years. Labuschagne has not consistently performed the role required of him even when Australia has been winning. Winning can cover cracks. It does not mean those cracks are not there.
Nathan Lyon’s retention also deserves discussion. He finished with 1-125 in Darwin and was unable to create sustained pressure, while Bangladesh’s spinners found ways to influence the match.
That does not erase Lyon’s outstanding career. But this series offered another opportunity to bring a younger spinner into the squad, expose him to the Test environment, and start planning for what comes next.
That opportunity has again been missed.
Coach Andrew McDonald said calling for change was the easy option and that the experienced players still had plenty of cricket left in them. That may be true, but keeping faith with familiar names can also be the easy option.
The second Test now becomes one of the biggest Test matches Australia has played in recent times. Lose in Mackay and Bangladesh will complete a historic series victory on Australian soil.
I wonder whether we will see a completely different intensity from Australia. We certainly should, because what we saw in Darwin was well below the standard expected of an Australian team.
Pat Cummins said during a light post-match press conference that Australia’s preparation had been great and the team had not taken Bangladesh lightly. If the preparation was right and Bangladesh were not underestimated, what explains the lack of intensity and such a poor performance? I think a few follow-up questions would have helped us understand better.
Australia must answer that question in Mackay. Not with another comfortable press conference, but through their performance on the field. The Mackay locals and surrounding towns deserve to see Australia at their best and I hope they can put on a show for them.