20/20, this is serious business.

The cricketing world has accepted 20/20 is now a serious form of the game, why can't the Australian selectors do the same? 

20/20 cricket is here to stay. It's a phrase I'm sick of hearing, but it's true. The whole world has moved past the glitz and glamor, hit and giggle type ideologies that came with the first couple of years of international T20 cricket. The whole world, that is, accept the Australian selectors. And with the 2009 world 20/20 tournament just around the corner, the selectors have to get their priorities right, and fast.

The Australian selectors, ever since the introduction of 20/20 to the international stage, have used the format to 'blood' young (or in the case of Shane Harwood, old) cricketers. I reckon they've played a debutant in almost every single international T20 friendly I've seen, and often, the guy only gets one game, then it's, 'thanks mate, now on ya way back home to the domestic scene' At first, it was funny. But now it's plain annoying, and I don't think it's doing the team nor it's players any good. Take Luke Pommersbach or example. He played one T20 game for Australia, he played well, and was never considered for any game for Australia again. Now he's struggling to get a game in Western Australia's 1st eleven.

The selectors, right now, need to stop treating 20/20 like it's a bit of fun, and start producing the best 20/20 squad Australia has to offer. It's fine if they want to rest the big players for certain matches, but they simply can't just pull guys like Pommersbach or Voges or Harwood out domestic cricket to play the one game, and then send them home. What they need to do is pick 12 or 13 good young players, and stick with them. Build up a good 20/20 side, or even better, stick with exactly the same side they use for 50 over cricket.

Another thing the selectors get wrong is the batting line up. Michael Clarke should not open. Sure, he's a good stroke-maker, but he doesn't have that ability to hit out, and hit big. Brad Haddin is the ideal partner for David Warner at the top, with Clarke slipping in at 4. They also seem dead set on not needing a specialist spinner. I think (and statistics will show) that spinners are very successful in 20 over cricket. David Hussey proves that. We have so many part time spinners (ie. White, Clarke, Hussey) in the side. Why can't a guy like Nathan Hauritz replace one of them?

People love the 20/20 format of the game. There is now big money, and big prizes on offer for champion 20/20 sides. But at the moment, it is so hard for the Aussies to gain any sort of winning momentum, because the side keeps chopping and changing pretty much every game. The Australian 20/20 side will continue disappoint unless the selectors stop using it as a practice run and start taking it seriously.