Selectors continue to flip Jackson the Bird
Columnist JACKSON BIRD – is the print big enough for the national selectors to see?
Somehow Tasmanian Bird has been flying under the radar. In his debut season last year he was voted Sheffield Shield player of the year by his peers – a first for a newcomer.
This season Bird leads the Shield wicket-takers with 27 at 20.55.
In the two seasons, Bird has captured 87 wickets from 17 games, at 19.72 – mighty impressive figures.
But not a flicker of recognition from the selection panel for the soon to be 26-year-old.
Not so with new-ball partner Luke Butterworth. He has the selector’s attention, despite the fact he’s three years older than Bird.
Butterworth has taken 25 Shield wickets this season at 17.72.
But late last month at Bellerive, Butterworth and Bird both bowled 13 overs against Western Australia – Bird took 6-25, Butterworth 0-18 – the West bundled out for 67.
Three days later Butterworth was named in the Chairman’s X1 to meet Sri Lanka in a three-dayer at Manuka, starting December 6. Bird missed out.
Go figure. Bird keeps being given the bird by the selectors when there’s no doubting his ability on a consistent basis.
Which makes you wonder what the selectors will do to replace the retiring Ricky Ponting against Sri Lanka in the three-Test series starting December 14 at Bellerive.
On show at Manuka will be leading contenders Usman Khawaja, who will captain the side, Alex Doolan who made an impressive 161* for Australia A against the South Africans, and the talented young all-rounder Glenn Maxwell.
In the Ponting replacement mix will also be Phillip Hughes, and the long-forgotten Callum Ferguson.
* Doolan (27) has scored 570 first class runs this season at 81.42 with that 161* his top score.
* Hughes (24) has averaged 47.63 this season for his 524 runs, top score 158.
* Ferguson (28) has scored 463 at 42.09 with a top score of 164.
* And Khawaja (25) at 39.81, top score 138.
But their chances depend on how the selectors rate the baggy green batting order:
* Openers – David Warner, Ed Cowan, Shane Watson, Hughes, and Rob Quiney.
* No 3 – Michael Clarke, Watson, Khawaja, Hughes.
* No 4 – Clarke, Watson, Khawaja. Doolan, Ferguson, Maxwell.
* No 5 – Clarke, Hughes, Doolan, Ferguson.
* No 6 – Mike Hussey alone.
* No 7 – Matt Wade alone.
The batting permutations are many, but there’s only one Jackson Bird.
- Explore:
- Cricket, Jackson Bird, Ricky Ponting
December 3rd 2012 @ 7:20am
Jamie said | December 3rd 2012 @ 7:20am | Report comment
I think everyone’s being a little premature about Bird. For one thing, he gets a lot of his wickets at Bellreive, which is by far the greenest deck in the country. For another, he’s still only had less than 20 games.
He strikes me as being similar to Trent Copeland, who had similar levels of hype (and FC wickets) a season or so ago. A good bowler, but not someone who will ever dominate at test level. Buggered if I can find any reaon that Hastings was picked ahead of him though!?
Coming back to Bird, I think its the lack of something extra that makes the difference between effectiveness at shield level and the same at test level – e.g. height and bounce (aka McGrath etc) or extra pace or swing.
Being tall or fast isn’t a guarantee of test success, but if those attributes can be married to control, the end product is something special. This for mine is the reason that the selectors keep picking guys like Starc or Hazelwood. They’re looking for the next leader of the attack. I think Pattinson has the goods, but he just keeps getting injured.
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:20am
jameswm said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:20am | Report comment
You can’t tell me Bird (or Hazlewood for that matter) wouldn’t have done significantly better than Hastings.
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:53am
Jamie said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:53am | Report comment
Not even slightly. Hastings is one of the most bafflingly bad selections in years. I would have liked to see Butterworth, Bird, Cutting, Coulter-Nile, Copeland, McKay or even Doug the Rug in front of him!! Just making the point that I don’t think Bird is going to be the Messiah.
December 3rd 2012 @ 11:49am
matt h said | December 3rd 2012 @ 11:49am | Report comment
It was a selection to cover Hilf’s into the wind bowling at the WACA and also to cover Watson’s lack of fitness. Failed on both counts. If Mackay wasn’t injured I would have liked to see him get a go. I haven’t seen enough of Bird, except for hearing that he is not particularly quick but is very accurate and moves the ball when comditions are helpful. He probably would have fared the same as the bowlers we picked – looked great the first innings, but istruggled n the second when the wicket flattened out.
December 3rd 2012 @ 12:40pm
John said | December 3rd 2012 @ 12:40pm | Report comment
Copeland earned his place through excellent FC returns, just like Bird. He didn’t do anything wrong in Sri Lanka, then shafted because he’s apparently “not fast enough” even though he was able to put great pressure on the Lankans. When will people learn that someone like him can bowl all day (fitness is not an issue), consistent line and length, moves the ball both ways and takes wickets. You say he is “A good bowler, but not someone who will ever dominate at test level.”, how can you tell, he never got the chance! See Philander for something similar and he seems to be able to do the business, as a cricket writer said yesterday, “After sometimes falling into trap of obsessing too much with raw pace, VP he’s a great reminder for me to recalibrate”, at least someone knows a decent test bowler when they see one! Raw pace is NOT taking wickets, how about we start thinking about smarter bowlers, not necessarily fast. Siddle looked half dead after 20 overs in one day and while I know he is our heroic put in bowler, 20 overs in a day is not something that should fatigue a leading bowler in conditions he is already accustomed too! On Cummins, Pattinson, Hazlewood, these guys are still growing so no surprises that they get injured. They need time in shield cricket to learn their work properly, learn how their body works when bowling long spells, be able to maintain accuracy for long periods. Hours and hours of grade and shield cricket till they 25, then once they know what they can achieve, pick them then. Yes they will be good, but they are simply not ready to go.
December 3rd 2012 @ 12:55pm
Disco said | December 3rd 2012 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
I agree re: Copeland.
December 3rd 2012 @ 8:10am
James said | December 3rd 2012 @ 8:10am | Report comment
Jamie,
Hobart isn’t the issue. Both Bird and Butterworth have better records away from Hobart. Do you think they have been premature around Starc who has 28 first class matches with 78 wickets at 32? How about Cummins and his 4 first class matches with 16 wickets at 33? Or Pattison with his 20 first class matches with 85 wickets at 22.3? Or Hazelwood -15 matches, 43 wickets at 32. Bird has played 17 matches and taken 87 wickets at 19.7 with an average of 19 away from Hobart.
David,
You are cherry picking the figures you want. In the second innings Butterworth took 5/50. I agree that Bird needs to get picked quickly, but Butterworth has had an incredible 3 years – topped the wicket takers in 2010/11 with 45 at 17.5, 7th in 2011/12 with 31 at 23 and currently second this season with 25 at 17. And he has scored 2 centuries and bats at an average of 27.5.
December 3rd 2012 @ 11:08am
Jamie said | December 3rd 2012 @ 11:08am | Report comment
James-to me, the difference between Bird and someone like a Starc or a Cummins or a Pattinson (being the 3 young selectors darlings) is that there is a lot more room for improvement in Starc et al. On the other hand, Bird is basically about as good as he’s going to get. He isn’t going to get taller, he isn’t going to be quicker and he isn’t going to be able to swing it more than he already does.
There is space in the test team for someone who bowls 25 overs of outswing at 130 klicks, and right now that space is the Hilf. Could be Bird and he could do as well, but I’d be surprised if he was as potent in tests as he is in the Shield.
On a bit of a tangent, look at the last 4-5 really good quicks Australia has had. None of McDermott, McGrath, Gillespie or Lee were picked solely on the strength of tonnes of wickets over several seasons. They were all spotted by the selectors early in their careers as having something.
McGrath debuted in the shield in 92/3 and played for Oz the next season with only 1 FC 5 wicket haul to his name. McD was 18 when he was picked and Dizzy was basically picked off the back of his performance in the 94/5 shield final.
I’m all for merit-based selections, but I think that there is space for fast tracking the best young talent also!
December 3rd 2012 @ 11:46am
James said | December 3rd 2012 @ 11:46am | Report comment
True true. Although I think that Lee was incredibly over rated as a player.
Surely Bird has to come above Hazlewood and Hastings in the team.
It just seems funny how many of the current selectors darlings (I’ll include Hazlewood here) come from NSW.
December 3rd 2012 @ 8:18am
Christo the Daddyo said | December 3rd 2012 @ 8:18am | Report comment
This article was worth publishing just for the headline…:)
Congratulations to whoever came up with that one!
December 3rd 2012 @ 8:56am
jamesb said | December 3rd 2012 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Here is an idea for the selectors:
Why don’t they pick bowlers who take wickets at Shield level? Picking the likes of Starc and Hazelwood was premature. Both those bowlers need to be taking wickets at domestic level.
Butterworth, Cutting and Bird should be given an opportunity. Also left arm quick Putland is another bowler who is slowly biulding his case.
So against Sri lanka, my bowlers are Siddle, Cutting, Bird or Butterworth and Lyon. Drop Hilfy, he is not taking wickets.
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:14am
James said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:14am | Report comment
JamesB, you are crazy. We should be talking about bringing in Josh Lalor. Why, because he is from NSW and has a moderate record with 18 wickets at 27.
Seriously though, I think that Faulkner at 22 years old, 107 wickets from 30 matches at 23 has to be considered as a strong long term prospect. He can bat as well and plays well under pressure (came in at 5/42 on the weekend, scored 66 and then took 4/32)
Given the batting ability of both Cutting and Butterworth, is it worth considering playing 5 bowlers?
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:25am
jameswm said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:25am | Report comment
6 bowlers including Watson? And what if Maxwell is your spinner?
5. Watson
6. Maxwell not really a test no.6
7. W-K
8. Butterworth
9. Cutting/Faulkner – good test no.9
10. Siddle – very good test no.10
11. Pattinson – very good test no.11
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:44am
James said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Maybe a bit of a stretch although I’d put Wade at 6. I think it depends on how much bowling Watson is able to do. He was clearly the pick of the Australian bowlers in the 2nd innings – the only one going for less than 4 an over (other than Ponting) and the clear problem in Adelaide was the lack of a 5th bowler particularly once Pattinson went down.
December 3rd 2012 @ 12:41pm
sittingbison said | December 3rd 2012 @ 12:41pm | Report comment
james I’m not sure if you were having a lend, but Watson was useless in the second innings. He OPENED the bowling, and was only getting 125kmh. At the WACA. That spell, combined with Hastings also only bowling at 125kmh was the reason Smith and Amla got away. There was NO pressure from the northern end into the wind. They were slow, and not accurate bowling well outside bith off and leg stump, and not swinging it into the freo doctor.
And he only bowled the 9 overs. Compared to Starc 28, Johnson 25, Hastings 19 and Lyon 22. Basically he should not even be considered a bowler when selected. If he bowls a bit fine, but should not be relied on.
One thing that really peeves me about Watson is opening the bowling and batting at 3. Thats saying he is the best bowler AND the best batsman in the team. At best he is a 5 or 6 batsman NOT an opener or 3, and he is a fourth or fifth change bowler NOT an opener. They are pandering to his ego.
And IF he is now injured again after only the 9 overs, the selectors and medical staff should be sacked, and he not selected until putting in a solid block of games at Shield level. The ongoing is he/isnt he fit saga is destabilising.
December 3rd 2012 @ 1:09pm
James said | December 3rd 2012 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
After 50 overs South Africa was 2/283
Hastings 14 overs 0/67 (4.78 runs per over)
Starc 12 overs 1/85 (7.08 runs per over)
Johnson 11 overs 1/59 (5.36 runs per over)
Lyon 6 overs 1/29 (4.83 runs per over)
Watson 5 overs 0/17 (3.4 runs per over)
And it was Watson’s fault that the South African’s got away in the second innings?
I agree that he shouldn’t be opening the bowling (neither should Hastings) and should be considered as the 5th bowler. He only bowled 9 overs because he is still recovering from injury and the selectors obviously thought that a partially fit Watson can’t do any worse than Quiney.
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:39am
Jason said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:39am | Report comment
I haven’t seen enough of Bird to comment on whether he deserves a run but what I have seen, I do wonder if he is quick enough for his style of bowler.
As for the batting – there is no way Callum Ferguson should be anywhere near the test team.
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:43am
Cameron Rose said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:43am | Report comment
Here’s what I think – there are maybe a dozen people in the country who would watch enough Sheffield Shield cricket to have an educated opinion about who is entitled to a crack at the highest level. The rest is all statistically based theorizing, along with a helping of state bias.
Hastings bowled a brilliant spell after lunch on day one, and looks to me the sort of bowler who would be a handful in English conditions. His batting ability might also come in handy over there. On a true batting pitch against a powerful South African line-up in the second innings, it did appear that he didn’t have any tricks and was unable to keep it tight. But when the batting side runs up 569, everyone is to blame.
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:49am
James said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Agree. But I can’t see what any of Hazlewood, Cummins or Starc have done in the shield to justify being picked for Australia as all have bowling averages over 30 in a short playing career. Of course they all play for NSW.
No one was able to actually provide any pressure on the batsmen. I know that Hilfy has struggled to take wickets but an economy rate of 2.1 through the series does put the pressure on the batsmen to score.
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:57am
D.Large said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Great point regarding Shield cricket and couch experts Cam, also this ridiculous state bias where people champion players from their own states.
Have to disagree on Hastings even with after his ‘brilliant spell’, before he had bowled a ball I could have told you that he wouldn’t last 3 tests and he won’t. Why? Because he is little more than a medium pacer and as Copeland was shown a year or two ago unless you have the reputation of a Glenn McGrath, you don’t get away with bowling at 125kmh.
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:21am
Cameron Rose said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:21am | Report comment
D.Large, I don’t know why you felt the need to highlight ‘brilliant spell’ as you sarcastically did. Hastings was extremely probing in that post-lunch spell, having Amla dropped after deceiving him, and getting de Villiers caught behind. Those two only combined for 365 runs in the second innings.
Hastings has his weaknesses though, as you and I both pointed out.
December 3rd 2012 @ 12:48pm
John said | December 3rd 2012 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
All the more reason to play a containing bowler like Copeland and D. Large, how do you get a reputation like McGrath unless someone backs you and when they don’t select you?
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:14am
B.A Sports said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:14am | Report comment
On ya Cam
I love reading these peeps speaking with such authority about Shield performances like they watch every ball. I didn’t realise so many people on this site lived within a short drive of Bellerive Oval.
But to be fair to Mr Lord, he didn’t have much time to come up with a new angle for his daily cricket rant (seriously becoming the Campo of Cricket) after Wade doubled the score of every other Aussie Batsman in the first dig, and made few, if any, errors with the gloves in several days in the field, it really narrowed down his writing options..
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:31am
Cameron Rose said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:31am | Report comment
I always find it interesting that people can speak with such authority on players they’ve probably never seen in white clothes. I often fancy that I know who shouldn’t be in the test side, but unless I’ve seen a player (like Khawaja or Hughes for instance), I find it hard to definitively say who should come in, and all you can do is read or listen to the opinions of those who know more.
Good point on Wade, I though he kept exceptionally. Great leaping catch off Steyn I think it was after 111 overs, very good concentration and technique after keeping all day to that run-fest.
And his innings really was something. Scored quickly, but it was a controlled innings where he simply dispatched the bad ball. To be fair, he did seem to get more of them than everyone else combined, but that’s what can happen when you play with intent. It was a classic gritty keepers knock.
Perhaps the Haddin supporters would have preferred he was there to dance down the wicket swinging wildly or hit a soft catch to mid-off to have us 7/50?
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:56am
Jamie said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:56am | Report comment
The live streaming that you can get through the Cricket Australia website is a remarkably good way to have a look at the players going round the Shield…
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:20pm
Lolly said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:20pm | Report comment
Yes the live streams are brilliant. You do learn things about the players by actually watching them!
It’s why I think Wade hasn’t been bad at all with the gloves for Aus, I’ve seen him perform horribly at state level and his keeping for Aus seems a big improvement.
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:20am
Matt F said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:20am | Report comment
I can see where you’re coming to a point from but cricket, like baseball, is a game where statistics have always played a significant role, and generally painted a pretty reasonable picture (though not always accurate.) However in the case of Jackson Bird, he did win the Shield player of the year award last season which I assume was voted on by people who actually have seen him play.
Of course we do have the captain and coach of the national side as selectors and I cant imagine that they get the chance to see much domestic cricket, given their international commitments, though that’s probably straying a little off topic
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:37am
Cameron Rose said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:37am | Report comment
Yep, and maybe Jackson Bird is the next best bowler. I’ve got no idea, but I doubt it was an oversight, and the selectors must have had their reasons.
Agree on the captain and coach as selectors, if you’re saying they shouldn’t be. I believe they should simply look after the team they’re given. The captain and coach should have a voice, sure, and a chance to make their case if they feel passionately, but not a final vote in selection.
December 3rd 2012 @ 11:17am
Matt F said | December 3rd 2012 @ 11:17am | Report comment
No doubt they’ve got reasons for their selections. They’ve never made selections based on pure statistics but by many other factors, which isn’t nescessarily a good or bad thing. That being said I don’t have a major issue with people questioning their decisions. No selection panel is going to get every selection right. After Day 1 of this test the selectors looked like geniuses but that’s changed a bit over the weekend!
re the captain and coach as selectors, that was indeed the point that I was making. I don’t buy into those arguments that they shouldnt be selectors because “they’ll be loyal to their mates” and “they won’t want to risk upsetting anyone” or any of that stuff but the fact that they don’t get the chance to see a lot of domestic cricket, and by extension aren’t able to get a good look at potential candidates for the national side (in any format) is one that worries me. As you said, they should have a say but no official vote.
December 4th 2012 @ 5:36pm
Glenn Mitchell said | December 4th 2012 @ 5:36pm | Report comment
Cameron, I could not agree more. So many people keep throwing up anmes for national selection yet I wonder how many of those they are backing have actually seen them play at Sheffield Shield level. Stats alone are not he only indicator as to whether a player is likely to succeed at the highest level. The National Selection Panel has an attendee at each Shield match being played ans are therefore getting to see first-hand player performance. They do not simply rely on a set of numbers with regard to selecting players to represent their country.
December 3rd 2012 @ 9:48am
Pope Paul VII said | December 3rd 2012 @ 9:48am | Report comment
James, Jamesb, Jamesm, Jamie are there anymore Jims out there? Loving your strike rate.
Hasting probably has excellent dressing room form of which Uncle Arthur is so fond. No question Birdy should have got a whirl and could not have been less threatening.
Johnners was impressive, Starckers got the figures so they will team up with Siddle assuming he returns.
Watto didn’t get much of a bowl. What was going on there?
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:04am
boes said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Watto bowled 9 overs in each innings, wouldn’t surprise me if the ‘sports scientists’ prescribed his quota…
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:06am
James said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:06am | Report comment
Yeah, the James’s are doing well. Reminds me of school.
How on earth was either Johnson or Starc impressive? South Africa were 3 for over 400. Yep, they lost 5 for 30 when they started chasing quick runs.
My understanding is that Watson is on limited bowling duties at the moment due to his injury. Pity, cause he was the only one of the bowlers who actually kept any pressure on the batsmen.
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:59am
Pope Paul VII said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:59am | Report comment
Nah Johnners went hard and there was some pretty impressive batting going on. Starckers was lucky.
December 3rd 2012 @ 12:46pm
sittingbison said | December 3rd 2012 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
Watson was useless in the second innings, his opening the bowling at the WACA at 125kmh let them off the hook. He didnt swing it, and didnt bowl at the stumps.
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:05am
The Kebab Connoisseur said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Saw you on the tele the other day Mr Lord. Keep up the good work!
Australia certainly has a problem taking 20 wickets in a test match against quality opposition. That is the key, where are we going to find these wicket takers?
Not sure if Bird is the answer. But I suppose we need to give him a go. I watched the recent Victoria/South Aust shield match over the internet and that Putland bowler looks a beauty. He is left arm quick and he swings it. I would be playing him in Hobart.
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:25am
Jason said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Has anyone here seem much of Cam Gannon who is also taking bagsful of wickets this year?
December 3rd 2012 @ 10:13am
Sailosi said | December 3rd 2012 @ 10:13am | Report comment
I definitely agree that Bird should be given serious consideration but I have a feeling that they are worried about his output once the ball is beyond 30-40 overs old. The fact that Hazlewood and Hastings were anywhere near an Australian test xi is an utter disgrace.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].