What is the cricket public supposed to make of the dropping of young Nathan McSweeney?
During the first three Test matches McSweeney made 72 runs at 14.4 and Usman Khawaja made 63 at 12.6.
I ask those who watched on in the first three matches, could they honestly work out who was the rookie and who was the 76-Test veteran?
McSweeney mightn’t be up to International standard, but we don’t know yet. Khawaja might be in decline, but we cannot be sure. However, it appears that someone can.
If the selectors have seen enough of McSweeney in his first three Tests to make that assessment, that he is not up to international standard, at least not yet, then surely they saw enough of Khawaja to assess that his decline is real?
McSweeney had at least been making runs in the lead up to first Test selection, whereas Khawaja is averaging 24 over the eight Test matches he has played in 2024.
McSweeney is 25 and accordingly to what they were saying pre-series is a player of the right temperament, a player of the future, maybe even a leader down the track.
Khawaja is now 38, his output has declined significantly in the past year and he suddenly looks out of his depth.
It appears to me that players in the early stages of their career are assessed on their brief experience, however experienced players are assessed on their whole careers. In assessing them on their whole career we the public and selectors seem to believe or assess that if they were once great players then they still are, or at least class players. We hear comments like ‘form is temporary, class is permanent’.
We seem to be not able to say a player was a great player over a certain period of years and then just a good player, or even an average one at the back end of their career.
However, looking at the stats, many a great batsman has had significant decline in the last quarter of their careers including Mark Taylor, Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke, Adam Gilchrist, David Warner and now Steve Smith and Virat Kohli.
These players still have the class, bring leadership, and will score some quality runs and centuries, however just not as often as they once did in their prime.
Historically the Australian selectors haven’t handled the transition of these players well. Warner averaged 30 in the last three years of his career. After the first year of that, he could have been moved on and someone else, maybe Cameron Bancroft when he was scoring plenty of runs or Henry Hunt, brought in.
That way they would have the opportunity to establish themselves while Khawaja was scoring well. Then, with that player established, Khawaja could have been moved on and a new player like Sam Konstas or McSweeney could have been selected and given time.
Now the selectors seen to be stuck, they need an experienced player like Khawaja there to mentor the rookies, but how effective is that when if he only averages 12?
