- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Don’t overload on all-rounders – specialist bowlers are more valuable than ever. That would be my message to the Australian selectors for this World Cup.
The impressive performance of Mitch Marsh in taking five wickets against England in Australia’s opening World Cup game has prompted many Aussie fans to suggest the co-hosts should consider playing four all-rounders.
Marsh, Shane Watson, James Faulkner and Glenn Maxwell are all in Australia’s best XI according to some followers, including numerous Roarers who have posted such an opinion in the past week.
Their argument was that this quartet could join together with two specialist bowlers, in Mitchell Johnson and Mitchell Starc, to form the team’s bowling attack. Australia would then have the deepest batting line-up in the competition, with Starc at 11.
I understand the appeal of fielding such a powerful batting unit. But it would go to waste. Since the start of last year, in half of Australia’s 24 ODIs they have not lost more than seven wickets.
Starc has typically batted at either 9 or 10 in his ODI career, yet has been required to bat in less than half of his 34 matches.
The strength of Australia’s top eight, together with the many innovations that have been generous to ODI batsmen, means they very rarely require their numbers 9, 10 or 11 to play an important role with the blade. Stacking the side with all-rounders so that Faulkner or Haddin would bat at 9 would be overkill.
Australia could play four specialist bowlers and still have a stronger tail than fellow tournament favourites South Africa.
Johnson is a very talented late-order batsmen, equally as good as South Africa’s number 8 batsman Vernon Philander. At 9, South Africa have Dale Steyn, who really is a bonafide number 11 as evidenced by his batting average of 8 in ODIs. If Australia went for four specialist bowlers, their number 9 would be the dangerous Starc, whose batting average is more than 30 in both ODIs and Tests.
South Africa’s problem is the opposite to Australia – they have no all-rounders. Instead, they have part-time bowlers in JP Duminy and Farhaan Behardien trying to sneak through 10 overs with the minimum of damage.
Australia are fortunate they have four quality all-rounders in their World Cup squad. But that doesn’t mean they all should play. Right now, three seems to be the right number. Unless Shane Watson rediscovers imperious batting form very swiftly then he, not Marsh, should make way when Faulkner returns from injury.
Australia’s best XI would then look like this: David Warner, Aaron Finch, Steve Smith, Michael Clarke, Mitch Marsh, Glenn Maxwell, Brad Haddin, Faulkner, Johnson, Starc and a third specialist bowler, depending on form and conditions.
This World Cup has seen an unprecedented level of high scoring, with teams exceeding 300 monotonously. It has been argued by some cricket followers that this is evidence why you need to have the deepest possible batting line-up. To compile or chase down mammoth scores you must bat all the way to 10 or even 11, they say. But weakening your bowling in order to achieve this surely is counter-productive. In an era dominated by batsmen, quality bowlers are more valuable than ever.
Fielding just two specialist bowlers and four all-rounders may work against weak or middling batting sides. It could, however, prove disastrous against a ballistic batting line-up like South Africa or New Zealand.
When AB de Villiers or Corey Anderson are on a wrecking mission who would you like to be able to call upon – an accomplished specialist bowler or a batting all-rounder? Marsh, Watson and Maxwell are handy bowlers, no doubt. But with a match in the balance and the opposition on the charge I’d feel far more comfortable seeing Josh Hazlewood or Pat Cummins at the top of their marks.
Hazlewood and Cummins are not just better prepared to counter onslaughts but are also far more likely to change the course of a game with an incisive spell. As the old adage goes, nothing slows the run rate like taking wickets.
If sides like South Africa or New Zealand are allowed to lose only five or six wickets for their innings, chances are they will churn out a mammoth score well in excess of 300. If teams can take regular wickets against them though, and get into their lower order, then they can be contained.
This is a tough task to achieve though if you have only two specialist bowlers. Don’t undervalue them.