Australia to face tough questions after picking Josh Hazlewood over Scott Boland for Brisbane Test

Picking Josh Hazlewood over the ultra-reliable Scott Boland was always a huge gamble. BEN HORNE asks whether it’s time Australia puts more trust in their second-string bowlers.

Picking Josh Hazlewood to return from a side strain at the expense of Scott Boland for this crucial Test match was always a massive risk.

Not because there were any ongoing concerns over Hazlewood’s fitness so much as the quality of the man you were leaving out to get him back in.

Labelling it a selection blunder might be a harsh call given Hazlewood succumbed to a new calf strain in the warm-up on day four, ruling him out for the rest of the series, not an aggravation of the side strain he had just recovered from.

But as Australia’s fast bowling attack ran out of petrol a man down and failed to stop India passing the follow-on mark which will likely save them the Test match, the question has to be asked whether the decision to pick Hazlewood was an unnecessary risk to take given the circumstances.

Josh Hazlewood will miss the rest of the series against India. Picture: Getty Images

Australia will say there was no risk taken because Hazlewood was passed 100 per cent fit, and they would not have played him otherwise.

Certainly there is no doubt this type of analysis is easy to write after the fact, with no dissenting voices speaking up when Hazlewood was confirmed as returning from a side strain at Boland’s expense on Test eve.

Perhaps recovering from one sore spot might have inadvertently contributed to this soft tissue injury in another part of the body? Or maybe Hazlewood and Australia were just damned unlucky. Coincidences do happen.

The inescapable reality though is losing Hazlewood midway through the first innings and cooking the rest of the bowlers as they were late on day four, was the worst-case scenario when you have had a player completing fitness tests that week, especially when the outstanding Boland was cherry-ripe and raring to go after Adelaide.

This is where the question of unnecessary risk comes into play.

If it was a question of returning Hazlewood from injury or blooding a green, unproven quick, then of course you back in the world champion in a Test which could define this Border-Gavaskar Trophy.

But the stakes are slightly different when the man you are leaving out to immediately return Hazlewood is an ultra-reliable force like Boland who was brilliant for Australia in the Adelaide Test when Hazlewood was out of the attack.

Add to this the fact there have been concerns over all-rounder Mitchell Marsh’s capacity to bowl – although Australia stressed after day four the decision to only bowl him two overs was tactical due to all the rain delays.

What Australia would have given to have Boland out there as they desperately hunted for that 10th wicket they needed to enforce the follow-on in sapping heat?

India will feel emboldened if they get out of this with a draw and head to Melbourne and Sydney knowing they only need one win to retain the trophy, and without the brilliant Hazlewood to face again either.

It must be said if Australia don’t win this Test, rain and Steve Smith’s dropped catch on the first ball of day four will have been major factors, not just the breaking down of Hazlewood.

Boland is set to replace Hazlewood for the Boxing Day Test. Picture: Mark Stewart

Selectors are traditionally very conservative when it comes to these sorts of decisions and Hazlewood’s side injury must have only ever been extremely minor, because returning after only one match out is very quick for this type of injury and Australia had forecast the prospect he could make his comeback in Brisbane as soon as he was ruled out of Adelaide.

Hazlewood is also proven as selfless in these situations, and two summers ago scratched himself before the Boxing Day Test because he didn’t feel quite right, allowing Boland to continue in the line-up against South Africa.

He must have been certain he was fit and you have to feel for the big fast bowler who has had a cursed run over recent years.

But for all the forensic evidence which said Hazlewood was categorically clear, this chequered history is why there were perhaps warning signs lurking just below the surface about this decision.

Hazlewood has now missed Test matches three out of the past four summers.

He is 33 and will turn 34 during the Sydney Test he now won’t be playing.

It’s easy to sit on the couch and argue in hindsight that selectors should have held him back for one more Test like they have done on notable occasions in the past when returning him from injury, like in the World Test Championship Final when they erred on the side of caution and played Boland.

But the conversation is more about what happens from here on out rather than pontificating over whether it might contribute to costing Australia this crucial third Test.

Hazlewood is still absolutely crucial to Australia and they now don’t have him for the rest of this series.

So, going forward, how do selectors ensure he can still contribute to this team for as long as possible?

It might involve using the big three more selectively and placing more trust in those around them.