Australia's End of an Era

A World Cup is the culmination of four years of preparation for all countries. The fulcrum of ODI cricket, plans are cleverly set, players given experience, and chances taken. All of that work for two months of cricket, which can end in a flash.

Australia are the number one ODI team in the world. In the years since the World Cup's last edition (which, incidentally, they won. And the two before that) they've crushed all before them, and were expected to do so again this time around.

Australian teams are expected to win World Cups. Anything less than this is regarded as failure. An indifferent 3rd position in the groups, followed by a fairly toothless defeat in the quarter finals is not what these 15 men were flown out to achieve.

After the horrendous flogging the selectors received in the wake of the Ashes, Australian test cricket is likely to get a vast makeover in the coming months. And this ODI side, who had been single handedly maintaining the honour of Australian cricket in the wake of the decline of the test outfit, have been shown to not be the all-conquering megaside that they'd been touted as being.

Shaun Tait can't bowl two balls in the same spot, and can't bowl more than two overs in a row without needing a sit down and a nap. Mitchell Johnson's radar is more wonky than Heather Mills playing Twister. Steve Smith is neither an international batsman or a bowler, yet he is told to be both. Jason Krejza (who admittedly is Australia's seventh choice spinner) hasn't looked like he should have been anywhere near a World Cup. And Ricky Ponting's ever-increasing strops this World Cup hardly inspire confidence that he should be a leader of these men.

Whenever cricket teams fail abjectly, fingers are pointed, and heads roll. While Australia do actually have a pretty good ODI side, they just haven't performed anywhere near the level required at this World Cup, and given the apocalyptic feel around Australian cricket at the moment, we could be seeing an end of an era.

White, Haddin, Ponting, Lee and the Husseys are all on the wrong side of 30, and could be put out to pasture. While I'm not advocating a vast and rapid change, the fact that Ferguson, Paine, Marsh and Khawaja are all ready to fill the batting breach (plus a whole host of young fast bowlers) mean that rapid wholesale change can be eased by the fact that ready made replacements are knocking on the door.

The all conquering Australian side who won three successive World Cups have gone, their reign of terror very much a thing of the past. The four year World Cup cycle has also finished, but a new one starts straight away. Whether this Australian team gets a fresh cycle remains to be seen.

Xavier Doherty. Not Nathan Hauritz.

So cricket's worst kept secret has been confirmed. Nathan Hauritz has been dropped. Seemingly for Xavier (Ex-aviour? Zav-ee-yay?) Doherty (Dock-erty? Dough-erty?), a man who has been somewhat plucked from obscurity to become the new big thing.

Only he isn't. He's hardly forced his way into the side via sheer virtue of wickets. 84 FC wickets at 48 in ten years is hardly forcing your way into a side. I've never seen Doherty bowl, so my view on him is based solely on averages. And in FC cricket, it hardly strikes fear into Strauss, Pietersen et al.

Nathan Hauritz, despite his doe eyes and naive grin has been castigated for the past however long for not being good enough. While Paul Harris has shown there is a place for crap spin in world cricket, the "Hauritz Out" bandwagon has rapidly picked up speed. However, the main reason Ritz didn't get the boot he deserved was because there was nobody there to spin instead of him. Krejza and McGain got their chance and fumbled their lines, and Steve Smith is a batsman who can turn it a bit (when he can be bothered). While there were a few cabs on the rank, there weren't any obviously better then Hauritz, so Ritzy stayed.

Doherty probably isn't much better than Hauritz, but public opinion over Hauritz meant the NSP felt they had to get rid. Doherty was the lucky man who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. Forget Hilditch claiming that Doherty's been picked to "trouble England's right handed middle order"; after losing three consecutive tests, somebody had to be the sacrificial lamb. And it was Hauritz. And as such, somebody had to come in as the saviour. And a man in a bit of form is Xavier Doherty.

So does Doherty's selection (and Hauritz's omission) improve Australia? Probably not. If it was based purely on ability, Ritz would have kept his place, as he has test experience, as well as Ashes experience. Doherty does not. The main thing he has going for him is that he is not Nathan Hauritz. That, and the fact he's a left arm spinner playing against Kevin Pietersen.