To judge from the indifference of Australian cricket fans to their team’s one-day series thrashing by Pakistan last week, it’s as if no one cares.
That’s probably because they don’t.
And that’s because it wasn’t Australia who succumbed so meekly to an opponent who historically struggles on these shores.
Australian players walk off the pitch after their loss to Pakistan.Credit: AP
It was an Australian XI, yes, wearing Australian representative colours, under Cricket Australia’s aegis. But it was far from the best team Australia could have picked for the fixtures and the format.
The team for the third and deciding match in Perth featured only three of the XI that won the 50-over World Cup in India not quite a year ago, and none of the likely XI that will square up to India in the keenly awaited first Test next week.
Josh Inglis hits out against Pakistan.Credit: Getty Images
One of that team was playing in the Australia A versus India A match at the MCG, a virtual Test trial and a much more consequential fixture than the instantly forgettable match in Perth. The others were resting up and recalibrating for the Test assignment.
That’s understandable. The integrity of the Test team has to be the priority. What’s bewildering is that the selection that took the field in Perth was allowed to be called “Australia” and so to have its feeble performance added to the sum of Australia’s long and decorated history in this format.
Development is important, which is why there are vehicles for it. But implicitly, a team that goes by the name of Australia must be the best the country can pick. It’s true, of course, that the best in each format will be different. The one-day team that met Pakistan in Perth was “Australia”, but plainly was not Australia. It showed.
To have this team go by the name of “Australia” was at best misleading and at worst an insult. That would have been so even if they had won. The public knew it well enough. The crowds for the series constituted no more than a smattering by the standards of this once wildly popular but now much diminished form of the game. The vast empty bleachers told their own tale.
It was as if these three one-dayers were being played to meet a contractual obligation. Which they were. They were part of no meaningful competition or championship, had no longer-term implications, furthered no tradition. At least one of the teams should have come with a disclaimer: contents are not necessarily as described on the label.
Glenn Maxwell after beating Afghanistan single-handedly in the 2023 World Cup.Credit: AP
This highlights a fundamental and intractable problem in cricket, particularly evident in this shoulder part of the season. Matches, series, formats, teams, tours come and go. There’s no shape to the fixture, no consistency, no organising principle.
Now an equally pointless three-match Twenty20 series trips over the heels of the one-day matches. Pakistan might be Pakistan, but “Australia” will be an approximation. Josh Inglis, also in the Test squad, will be captain until suddenly he’s required elsewhere. The identity of “Australia” will become more blurred still.
It’s not exclusively Australia’s issue. There are at least two Indias in or about to begin action, and several Englands, too. And it won’t change. It can’t. Too many interests are competing, too many needs must be propitiated. Some are even concerned with cricket.
Pakistan’s Muhammad Rizwan celebrates another win over Australia.Credit: Getty Images
Into this vortex, whole careers disappear. A year ago this week, Glenn Maxwell played perhaps the most astonishing innings in 50-over history, making 201 not out on one leg to deliver Australia to victory over Afghanistan from a hopelessly lost position. It was unforgettable.
Since, Maxwell has played eight ODI innings and reached double figures twice. In three innings against Pakistan, he made two ducks. He’s put out as many books as he’s won games.
He’s made useful contributions in various Twenty20 affairs, international and domestic, but endured a wretchedly barren IPL season.
Extraordinarily for a man still touted as a possibility for subcontinental Test tours next year, Maxwell has played two first-class matches in five years and no Test matches since 2017. This record is mitigated by a couple of nasty injuries, but nonetheless tells of a cricketer who has done well from the game, yet somehow has not been well served by it.
Maxwell appears here not as a scapegoat, but as an example. As long as the start of each new summer continues to be used as a clearing house for oddments of tours and other sundry commitments, some players will continue to find themselves lost between stools, many matches will disappear into the ether, never to be remarked upon again, and lots of fans will wonder why they are being asked to accept second best. Who could blame them?
News, results and expert analysis from the weekend of sport are sent every Monday. Sign up for our Sport newsletter.
