Almost Getting It Right - A Review of Australia's 2012 T20 World Cup

There is no doubt that Australia have come a long way in T20 cricket since the disastrous days of the first Twenty20 world cups, where my disappointment was plain to see here, and here. In the two most recent World T20 championships, however, Australia has got it right - almost. On both occasions, they've gone deep into the tournament - making the final in 2010, and the semi-final in 2012. In latter, they certainly played the best T20 cricket I have ever seen them play. Unfortunately, it wasn't quite to be, and the World T20 trophy still remains the only one missing from Cricket Australia's impressive cabinet. So let's dissect what Australia did right, and not-so-right, in Sri Lanka this year:
           
1) Team Selection - Chris' rating: 9/10

Australian Team, Sri Lanka 2012: Warner, Watson, M. Hussey, C. White, Bailey (c), Wade (wk), Maxwell, Christian/Doherty, Hogg, Starc, Cummins

The Australian selectors have finally learned how to build a proper T20 team. In the days of old, they were too traditional with their selections and game-plan, recycling and reusing players and techniques that worked in the longer formats, but didn't click in the shortest. Here's what I believe is essential in the make up of a successful T20 team:

1) Have your most explosive, technical six-hitting batsmen up-front

The opening batsmen are the only players in T20 who have enough time to get their eye in, and it essential that they do, as 99% of the time these are the players that will smack you a match-winning total. They are wasted if played down the order, as even the best of six hitters, such Chris Gayle and David Warner, need time to play themselves in - well, most of the time, anyway. Australia got this right this tournament, opening with Warner and Watson.

Batting of this quality would never be wasted down the order

2) Have a wide variety of bowling options

In the past, Australia would play the standard, tried-and-true bowling attack of three seamers, one spinner, and maybe one medium-pace allrounder. It just doesn't work. In 20/20, variety is your best weapon. You need bowlers who can adapt to the game situation as quickly as possible, and if they can't, then you need to be able to turn to someone who can. You also need variety within the pace and spin attacks; someone who can swing it if it's swinging, hit the pitch hard if it's not; someone who can toss-it-up if it's turning, and someone who can dart it in at the base of off-stump if it isn't. And someone you can turn to if you just need a darn wicket.

Australia had all of that this tournament; Mitchell Starc is a very good young swing bowler, and Patrick Cummins a real wicket-taker. Brad Hogg turns the ball and Doherty darts it. Shane Watson is as destructive as any, and Glenn Maxwell and Dan Christian are both solid options. The only thing they really lacked was a quality death bowler, but in time Starc will be just that, I am sure.

3) Play two specialist spinners, at least

I can't explain why, but spinners are still the most dangerous bowlers in T20 cricket. There's just no question about it. Maybe it's the lack of pace on the ball, maybe it's the accuracy, maybe it's the bamboozlement - I just don't know. What I do know is that they are effective. Just look at the list - Mendis, Narine, Ajmal, Swann- it just spells mystery, accuracy, and wickets. And although Hogg and Doherty aren't quite in the same echelon of quality spinner, they were still effective, and the idea behind their tandem selection was definitely right.

Spin is a big thing in T20 cricket - and this man is the biggest

4) Have a brave captain

The problem with Ricky Ponting as captain was that he was too orthodox, too set in his ways, too old-fashioned. Bowl the wicket taking pacemen in the powerplays, bowl the spinners with the field set out, bring the pacemen back in for the death overs. And it got punished, time after time. I'm still not overly convinced of George Bailey's position in the team, let alone as skipper. But I do believe that that man can lead a side. He has a good mindset - that of flexibility and new ideas. He leads the team very well in the field. If he can start doing it with the bat, I will definitely be the first to jump onto the Bailey-Bandwagon.

So Australia had in their team most of what it takes to win a tournament such as the T20 world cup. What lacked, however, was a solid and adaptable game plan.

2) Game Plan - Chris' Rating: 5.5/10

In the early parts of the tournament, Australia's game plan was excellent. This was because the conditions were very well suited to the way the Australians love to play: very aggressively. The pitch at Colombo was quick and bouncy, and the Aussies played accordingly; barraging the opponent with short deliveries, and hitting big sixes square of the wicket, with Shane Watson chief plunderer with both bat and ball. All of their successful matches were won in this manner.

"Congratulations on adapting your game plan - the Aussies didn't!"

However, as the pitch and conditions began to change - to a slow, dusty wicket conducive to spin - the Australians, in particular, their batsmen, failed to adapt their game plans. If you watched the way Pakistan batted in the final super-8's game vs. Australia, you would have seen how to properly play on that wicket: bat with respect to the conditions early on - play yourself in, build a solid platform, keep wickets in hand, and then launch with 10 overs to go. With a total of 160 - odd to chase, the Australians tried to attack too early, lost wickets, and never had a sniff. A similar thing happened to Australia in the semi-final against the West Indies, although with a much higher total to chase. It proved to be just too much, especially against such quality bowling from Narine and Ravi Rampaul.

It just goes to show that even in such a short period of time, conditions can change quickly, and quick adjustment and adaption is key in T20 cricket. With a little more practice and experience, I think Australia will definitely improve this facet of their game; they've come along way, and things are looking up.

3) Batting - Chris' Rating: 4/10

Australia relied far too heavily on Watson 

Australia's batting was OK in this tournament - nothing more, nothing less. They relied far too heavily on Warner and Watson at the top, and had not much to write home about after that. Mike Hussey is still a workhorse and very much the glue that holds the middle order together; there will be a big void to fill when he retires. George Bailey showed glimpses when he got the opportunity, but couldn't quite do it when it really mattered, though he was unlucky in the semi-final. I believe he would have gotten very close to chasing down the West Indies' huge total if someone had been able to stay with him to the end. Cameron White and Matthew Wade just seemed to lack a little bit of experience and composure in times when it really mattered, and the middle order still lacks that really solid pinch hitter to finish off an innings - a role that I think Mitchell Marsh will play very well in the future.

4) Bowling - Chris Rating: 7/10

Mitchell Starc never fails to impress

There were a lot of positives to come out of Australia's bowling performance at the world cup. In particular the young-guns, Mitchell Starc and Patrick Cummins, were fiery, fast, and always threatening. But the most important fact is that they both came out of the tournament injury-free. I was almost praying that they would come out of every match unscathed following Australia's recent horror run with injuries to young fast bowlers, so this tournament was a major step in the right direction. Mitchell Starc was particularly good - he swung the ball aggressively and accurately, and there is no doubt in my mind that he is Australia's next big thing. Little needs to be said about Patrick Cummins, at 19 years of age bowling inswinging yorkers at the 150kph mark... what an exciting prospect he is!

Unfortunately, Brad Hogg, at the ripe old age of 41, did not have quite the impact he would have liked coming out of retirement. The conditions suited him, but he just seemed to lack the energy of old, and he gave away that one loose boundary ball each over - something he never did back in his hay-day. Xavier Doherty continues to impress with his darting left-arm orthodox, and in my books he is certainly Australia's premier limited overs bowler, alongside Stephen O'Keefe.

His roll as a medium pace allrounder is supposed to be a supporting one, but Shane Watson is as big a wicket-taking weapon as any, in all forms of the game. His danger comes from his surprisingly heavy ball and quick bouncer, particularly following his slow, lumbering run-up. He is certainly developing into one of Australia's all-time greats, if he isn't up there already.

Dan Christian is superb in the field

The other allrounders, Glenn Maxwell and Dan Christian, were both sturdy without being highly effective. They didn't quite prove to me that they belong at international level just yet, especially with players such as David Hussey, Mitchell Marsh and Steven O'Keefe waiting in the wings. However, one thing that impressed me about Dan Christian is his fielding, and in particular, his catching - some of the grabs he took were absolutely superb.

All in all, I think this tournament can be labeled a success for Australia, despite falling just short of winning. They were very good in some facets of the game, not so good in others, but there is no doubt that they are improving as a T20 side. The foundations have certainly been laid for an agressive, young and consistent Australian T20side, upon which I hope another cricketing dynasty is born. Until then, however, us cricketing nuts turn our attention to the longer formats of the game, with South Africa knocking at our door. Bring on the summer!