Mitchell Johnson: Andrew McDonald and George Bailey are not giving players their best chance of succeeding

The easy conversation coming out of Australia’s Test against South Africa at Kingsmead is the selection of Nic Maddinson.

But for me, the bigger issue isn’t Maddinson himself. It’s the thinking behind his selection and the clarity around his role in the Australian team.

We heard the reasoning behind picking him. His ability to play spin was apparently a major factor. Fair enough, selectors are entitled to look at particular skills.

But if that’s the reason, why was he opening the batting in South Africa? And why was Matt Renshaw, an established opener who showed us how to play Test cricket in difficult conditions, batting at five?

George Bailey and Andrew McDonald have explained those decisions, but I still question the thinking. Their job is to select players and put them in positions where they have the best chance of succeeding. From my experience, knowing your role and understanding what is expected of you are very important to performing at that level.

Yes, you have to adapt. Batsmen sometimes move up or down the order. Bowlers might take the new ball one match and bowl first or second change the next. But there’s a difference between adapting to a situation and being uncertain about your role.

I wonder what was going through Maddinson’s mind when he was selected and then told he would open in South Africa. He has been through a significant personal battle with testicular cancer, and his return deserves respect.

But after around 18 months without first-class cricket, he was suddenly facing a quality South African attack at Kingsmead. That’s a serious challenge for any player.

Watching his first innings, I felt for him. He looked unsure in his decision-making, rather than settled in how he wanted to approach the innings. South Africa bowled to a solid plan and put him under pressure. That’s what good bowling attacks do.

Maddinson’s innings suggested to me a player who wasn’t completely comfortable with his preparation or role. I can’t know what was going through his mind, but I’ve experienced how uncertainty can affect your performance.

There were periods during my Australian career when I struggled for consistency and put enormous pressure on myself. Then there was the outside pressure from the media, former players and supporters. When things aren’t going well, you can feel like you’re letting everyone down: your country, teammates, family and yourself. You start questioning things that normally come naturally.

After my toe injury in 2011-12, there were discussions about how I should bowl. The selectors had a particular idea of the bowler they wanted me to be, but it wasn’t how I wanted to play. I didn’t want to operate around 138kmh, trying to be crafty with swing and movement. My mindset was to bowl fast, 145kmh-plus, be aggressive and attack batsmen.

That’s who I was. If that wasn’t good enough to play for Australia, I could accept it. At least I would have given myself the best chance by playing my way.

When messages from selectors, coaches and captains aren’t aligned, it becomes difficult to perform freely. Whether you’re playing your first Test or your 30th, that uncertainty can get into your head.

I also know what it’s like to question whether you’re good enough to be selected. There were times when part of me wanted to say no because I wasn’t confident in my game. But you don’t turn down an opportunity to represent Australia, and I certainly wouldn’t expect Maddinson to. That’s why I question the decision-makers rather than the player.

Travis Head’s recent comments about how the game has changed also interested me. He was responding to criticism from former Australian players, and I want to understand what he means. Aspects of cricket have changed, however I don’t believe the fundamentals of Test cricket have.

Has the length a successful fast bowler needs to hit changed? Does a batsman no longer need to understand his off stump, leave well, defend when required and recognise when to attack? Does patience suddenly not matter? Of course it does.

Twenty20 cricket has influenced the modern game. Batsmen are more aggressive, scoring rates have increased and players have developed shots we rarely saw in previous generations. That’s evolution, and there are positives to it. But the fundamentals required to succeed in Test cricket haven’t disappeared.

Renshaw’s innings at Kingsmead, and his partnership with Pat Cummins, were a reminder of that. He was patient, respected good bowling, adapted to the conditions and put a price on his wicket. When opportunities came, he took them. Cummins showed the same willingness to fight through a difficult period. Together they made the bowlers work hard.

South Africa’s attack also showed that disciplined bowling, patience and consistently challenging a batsman’s technique remain effective. So when we say the game has changed, we need to be clear about which parts have changed and which still matter.

The pressure and career opportunities facing players are different now. There are opportunities to earn significantly money playing T20 around the world and to have a successful career without establishing yourself as a Test cricketer. That wasn’t the case for someone like Dennis Lillee, who had to work and fight for his opportunities with Western Australia and Australia.

I’m not suggesting today’s players don’t care about Test cricket or feel pressure. Of course they do. But the financial security and pathways available are different. Has that changed the pressure associated with playing Test cricket? It’s a fair question.

When former players such as Matthew Hayden, Simon Katich and Ryan Harris question selections, their opinions shouldn’t simply be dismissed because the game has supposedly moved on. Most want Australia to succeed. They understand what it takes to perform at that level, and clarity in selection is a legitimate issue to raise.

Renshaw’s journey is a good example of why first-class cricket still matters. He played Tests early, returned to domestic cricket and spent years working on his game.

That time has helped him understand his strengths, technique and how he wants to play. At Kingsmead, I saw a batsman who looked confident and comfortable. Someone who belonged.

After his recent selection against Bangladesh, I’m sure he would have seen an opportunity to establish himself as an Australian opener again. Instead, he was batting at five. Players understandably say they’re happy to bat wherever the team needs them, but I’d love to know whether Renshaw wants that opening position. From what I’ve seen, I believe he’s earned the opportunity.

My concern is whether Australia are giving their players the clarity, preparation and opportunity they need to succeed. The game has evolved, but Test cricket still rewards patience, skill, discipline, toughness and knowing your game.

Maybe we should be asking whether we’ve complicated something that was always pretty simple. Give players the best chance to succeed, give them a clear role and let them play.