The push for Jackson Bird to be elevated to the Australian Test team gained serious momentum over the last couple of weeks.
With Bird’s inclusion in the squad for the Boxing Day Test Match, it would seem the campaign has been a roaring success.
I found it quite bizarre that Bird had gained such a ‘loyal’ following, considering the fact that he only made his first class debut last season.
How does one earn an army of supporters in such a short time?
After all, the Sheffield Shield competition is not shown on TV, and both domestic limited overs tournaments – the Ryobi Cup and Big Bash League – are broadcast on Pay-TV operator Foxtel, whose penetration into Australian households hovers around 30%.
That would all suggest that very few cricket followers have actually seen Bird bowl a lot of overs. So, if that’s the case, where does the support for his Test team selection come from?
The simple answer is statistics, for Bird’s are outstanding.
Bird is the leading Sheffield Shield wicket-taker for the past two seasons, and has claimed an impressive 87 first-class wickets at an average of 19.72 in 17 matches.
Bird had a dream debut season for the Tasmania Tigers in 2011-12. He took 53 wickets at an average of 16, topped the bowling tally, and was named the Sheffield Shield Player of the Year.
His stellar season was punctuated by the hat-trick he took against Western Australia in Hobart. He finished the game with match figures of 11/95, as he helped Tasmania earn a spot in the Shield final.
Not a bad rookie year.
Yet far from being a flash-in-the-pan or a one season wonder, Bird again leads the Shield wicket taking tally this year with 27 scalps.
Numbers like that prove very hard to ignore for selectors, and Bird justifiably got the call up for the pinnacle of the cricketing calendar, the Boxing Day Test Match in Melbourne.
But who the hell is Jackson Bird?
The young right-arm bowler is 26 years of age, and in 2011 he moved from New South Wales – where he played grade cricket for Manly – to Tasmania, in order to break in to first-class cricket.
By now, you’ve probably read or heard that he’s accurate and bowls at the stumps. That he’s capable of swinging the ball both ways, along with getting seam movement, even if he doesn’t bowl at express pace.
That’s a fantastic summary.
However, anyone can read a cricinfo profile.
This is an opinion website, and whilst Bird has tremendous statistics, I think it’s important that opinions are based on more than just statistics or carefully constructed website bios.
I’ve seen Bird bowl a little bit, and my personal impression is that he’d be a very handy limited overs bowler, due to his control and accuracy. Yet I think he may lack the penetration and ‘zip’ required to be a frontline quick at Test level.
He reminds me slightly of ex-Queensland and Australian bowler Adam Dale, though I admit that he is slightly quicker. Dale enjoyed a solid international career in the 50 over format, but played just two Tests, with concerns over his ability to pressure elite level batsmen.
This is the same concern I hold for Bird in the Test arena.
However, as I’ve stated many times before, he has well and truly earned the right to prove me, and others, wrong. Wickets – and truckloads of them – will do that.
As part of due diligence in writing this article, I spoke to two batsmen who have faced Bird, to gain their perspective of his ability and potential.
Seeming as both batsmen had been dismissed by Bird in the past, it may be unsurprising that they were high in their praise for him.
The consensus was that while Bird may not send down lightening bolts, he’s hardly pedestrian with his pace. He’s always ‘at you’ and gives away few ‘freebies’ or bad balls. He can also make the ball ‘talk’, and gets the most out of conditions.
Sounds a little like Glenn McGrath if you ask me; and he was able to carve out a somewhat successful career, I think you’d agree?
The other thing I was reminded of after speaking to the batsmen, is that pressure can come from more than just bowling quick.
Pressure can come from attacking the stumps, making batsmen play, keeping the score tight, and moving the ball just enough to beat the bat or get an edge.
Speed isn’t everything.
The batsmen didn’t give me much – essentially a smattering of cricket jargon for exactly how Bird has been described everywhere else: not express pace, but accurate, and can swing and seam the ball.
Is that enough for him to succeed at Test level?
I think it’s only fair to Bird that we find out.
Deep Thinker
Guest
Yes it matters. Having 4 quality bowlers bowling well against quality batsmen who are batting well means there is less questions to be asked of the batsmen. Variety is king. I think this is a big unstated rationale for "resting" bowlers. It makes it really unpredictable for the opposition to determine who they will face and that can affect their preparation. Australia can fill 5 or 6 teams with quality fast bowlers so why not rotate them and keep the opposition batsmen guessing? If you asked me who are Australia's best bowlers I find it very hard to answer. Talent wise I'd say Johnson or Starc, Pattinson is mighty impressive, Siddle has been fantastic, Hilfenhaus is very good, Bird is looking very capable, Harris has a superb test record, and there are truckloads of other who if given games we'd be talking about in the same vein (eg. Cummins, NCN, Butterworth, Cutting, McKay, Copeland, Faulkner, Putland, Bollinger etc). Try narrowing that group down to three bowlers! Given all this talent, Australia would do much better selecting teams based on keeping variety in the attack.
Cav
Guest
I have read all of the above and the comments are probably the best I have seen. I know Jackson personally so this may seem bias. I just thought one thing missing from most of the comments was his age and strength as a quick. At 26 Jackson is probably approaching the best 6 or 7 years of his cricketing career, something other bowlers did not all have when they commenced their test career. I know his history and he has the perfect credentials with his Junior Cricket 1st Grade Cricket, Domestic Cricket and Limited Over Cricket. He was given an opportunity at Shield Level and proved his selection, the next obvious step for him was at test level and I believe his lengthy apprenticeship will be a plus for his endurance.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
True Richard, but not evey bowler can be Dale Steyn. Some just don't have the technique, temperament or ability. If unpredictability is your strength, you have to play to it. Turning Thommo into a line and length bowler was never going to work, so they just let him rip.
Shane
Guest
Definitely sounds like the sort of bowler we should be giving experience in the run up to the Ashes. Sadly I don't think Hilfenhaus, Pattinson or Starc will make it due to injury and Johnsons bad spells outweigh the good so his ability to lock down one end is sadly lacking at present. The next issue is our spinners. From Krezja, Lyon & Doherty just don't seem to have stepped up either. We can't have Watson & Siddle as our 'go to' guys, they workload will be too great. The last thing we want to see in a tightly fought Ashes test, when Australia desperately needing a wicket is the keeper ripping the gloves off for a bowl.
J
Guest
I have the pleasure of knowing Jack and he is 6 foot 6 :)
Justin2
Guest
A fair article, though had you just told us after the research how quickly he bowled, then in combination with his stats it would appear he is fully deserving of a shot. I have massive concerns over Starc and Johnson. They can both look very very ordinary, Starc saved his bacon with knocking over the lower order on the 5th day of a test. I am yet to be convinced he will be a Test regular.
richard
Guest
Good article and timely given the run of injuries and lack of penetration that has been the hall mark of the summer so far. If the selectors have any bottle they must give Bird a run. It is the perfect time to have a look at him with big assignments ahead. He has the potential to be an Ashes winner in England. Johnston has made an admirable comeback. This is my Aussie fast bowling pecking order at the moment, if all are 100% fit and firing(big if), Cummins,Pattinson, Siddle, Bird, Starc, Hilfenhaus, Johnston.
richard
Guest
I agree Jezru. Stein is the bench mark in this regard. If he is not bowling the unplayable bowl then he is mostly on the money. Ryan, in this respect it is worse than being in 2 minds. With Stein you can never relax knowing if I just wait I will get a long hop down the leg side.
pope paul v11
Guest
Good point. Viva la lefties.
A1
Guest
Dave Hussey has never been OUT of form! Hes the most consistent first class batsmen in Oz!
Jason
Guest
David Hussey was never in form when a test spot was available and he has also been pretty ordinary in limited overs games for Australia. Now he's just too old.
Jason
Guest
Working under Tim Coyle might have helped too.
TheGenuineTailender
Roar Guru
Well one inconsistent bowler has taken test match five fors in back-to-back tests. Sometimes an erratic bowler will take the wickets that the tighter bowlers can't get. They can surprise the batsman with a delivery they don't expect and snick off or get bowled, ala Starc's yorkers.
JohnB
Guest
And to be fair I wasn't advancing the only good on Hobart greentops line either! I'll throw Paul Reiffel's name in as another potential comparison for Bird. As I say, I hope he gets a game so we can all get some idea of what he's capable of.
JohnB
Guest
To the extent they were all quick and all right armers, no. In the way they bowled however, they did to at least some extent - Garner and then Ambrose were very tall, Bishop and Patterson only slightly less tall but quicker, Croft bowled from very wide angling in sharply as did Walsh, Marshall was much shorter than the others and moved the ball about, Holding was that crucial bit quicker, Roberts not a giant, quick but not outrageously so, but just a very good bowler.
Ryan O'Connell
Guest
I love both selections. I was really happy they picked Khawaja and Bird. Though I have a strong feeling neither will actually play.
Kris
Guest
I see what you're saying, but I've never fully understood just why David Hussey was never given a shot at test level.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I actually preferred bowling. Reason being, if you make a mistake, the worst thing that happens is you get hit for a boundary - but you get the chance to rectify it the very next ball. Make one mistake batting, and your day is over!
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
I take your point that bowlers need to be consistent, but by the same token, erratic can be a good thing too. And by that, I mean an unpredictable bowler who can produce unplayable pearlers and can put the batsmen in two minds. The has been a few of them over the years, those that have been celebrated for their looseness, for lack of a better word. Jeff Thomson, Ian Bishop, Steve Harmison, Shoaib Akhtar, Shaun Tait, just to name a few. The issue becomes when those unplayable balls are too infrequent. It happened to Mitchell Johnson a few years ago, when he was still getting picked on the hope he would deliver, but only happened once every ten games. That's not good enough.
matt h
Guest
I don't know about that. Marshall was skiddy and swung it both ways. Big Bird bounced the ball at your throat from a good length. Holding was seriously quick (can''t remember if he was more swing than seam). Colin Croft speared it in from wide at the crease, etc