Australia have selected a strong team of seam bowlers to contest the Ashes in the UK. You can judge this by who has been left out.
Mitchell Johnson and Ben Hilfenhaus have 304 test wickets between them. Can Australia afford to leave them at home?
Do the selectors feel they are past their best and not part of the future? Or do the selectors simply believe there are better options?
I am inclined to think that the selectors believe the bowlers they have picked are the best options in English conditions, although I do have a nagging suspicion that Johnson and Hilfenhaus are not in the selectors’ thinking down the track.
I don’t think age is a factor: Ryan Harris is older than Mitch and Ben.
It would have been a difficult decision leaving Hilfenhaus at home. His bowling does suit English conditions, but he can bowl a bit short at times, which makes his outswinger less effective.
For this reason, I believe they went with Harris, whose stock ball is a bit fuller in length.
Personally, I would have been tempted to bring them both.
Johnson, on the other hand, would have been a more straightforward decision. His inconsistency with line and length, as well as not being able to swing the ball regularly, has cost him a seat on the plane.
So let’s have a look at who Australia have picked in the pace bowling department.
Peter Siddle is an aggressive paceman who has benefitted from bowling a fuller length and improving his strength and fitness.
I respect how he has taken ownership of his game and identified what he needed to do to get better and has gone out and done it.
My one concern with Peter is how he is going to be utilised: is he the short burst, aggressive fast bowler? Or will he be asked to do the ‘donkey work’, bowling long spells when the ball is older?
It will be interesting to see which way Australia go, but I would like to see him in an attacking role, in 5 over bursts of aggression.
There is a lot to like about James Pattinson. He is a fast, aggressive bowler who can get movement away from the right hander. He has a good short ball and can ruffle a few English feathers.
The question will be simply whether he can get through five Test matches.
Mitchell Starc bowls good pace, swings the ball back into the right hander, and has a very good Yorker.
The challenge for Mitchell is going to be making sure his wrist position is consistent to allow the ball the opportunity to swing into the right hander and not get too ‘floaty’.
By this I mean not just looking to put the ball there, but actually bowling the ball hard into the pitch on a good length. He will finish his action, and if his release of the ball is good, the Duke cricket ball will swing for him.
I have not seen much of Jackson Bird, but from what I have seen, his bowling is well suited to English conditions. He is tall, has decent pace and bowls good old-fashioned line and length. Natural variation off the wicket hitting the seam will be his best weapon.
Ryan Harris hustles in and hits the bat hard, bowling a good length. He gets movement through the air and off the pitch. He is always at the batsman, making him play all the time, and bowls long spells.
The concern will be whether his ageing body can cope, as he has had some injuries in the recent past.
It will be interesting to see which all rounder gets the nod for the first Test, if they go down that path: Watson or Faulkner?
If the selectors believe Watson is in the best six batsmen, he can slot in and be the fifth bowling option with Brad Haddin playing his aggressive style of game at number 7.
Faulkner is the better bowler of the two all-rounders but Watson is the superior batsman. Faulkner brings left arm variation and he swings the ball at decent pace.
He is not yet good enough to bat at six in Test cricket, but his batting is improving.
This is Jason Gillespie’s first column for The Roar. He will be writing regularly for The Roar over the Ashes series.
twodogs
Guest
Hope he gets a couple o' tons. Apart from Clarke he's probably our next best at present. Ok ok, for the five tests if no washouts - 86 &18. 43 & 27. 166 & 63. 0 & 94. 213 no & dnb- innings win. I'm havin 50 on him to make a double plus 50 as top scorer for series. Great hand-eye but needs to halt the rushes of blood. If all goes well it will make him. Remember he carried his bat in real tough conditions in tassie.
Nick Richardson
Roar Guru
NZ test series comes in to mind. 167 all out on a extremely flat pitch by a ordinary bowling side missing their best spin bowler, the English got out scored by a player on debut. Sticking around probably not the right sentence.
Nick Richardson
Roar Guru
Our bowling cancels out their batting. Bowling line-ups are not equal.
Nick Richardson
Roar Guru
Faulkner is a better bat though.
James
Guest
ok warner gets 86 so thats the one time he actually bats well now whats the score for the next few times he bats
James
Guest
i dont see the english bowlers having much problem with bowling out the australian bowlers, maybe one or two may get a few runs but england should be able to get them out cheaply. and i also really dont see australia ever having to chase 250 to win, maybe 250 to avoid losing by an innings. england dont need a stuart broad batting at 11 because they have batsmen who like staying at the crease and scoring runs, which means that the bowlers dont usually have that pressure or the inevitable tiredness which if australias quicks are called into saving matches will mean that come the third test and beyond will be dead tired not to mention their bodies just breaking as most fast bowlers bodies tend to do every few tests nowadays
Matty
Guest
Dizzy great article. My question is how do each of the pitches differ in England in terms of pace, bounce, and what could you expect Nathan Lyon to play all games or would an all out pace attack with Clarke/Warner be a better option?
twodogs
Guest
All hinges on our openers I imagine. Maybe something like this - aus 1st dig at lunch... Cowan 17* off 90, Warner 86* off 54. Then at stumps... AUS all out 179. England 0-68. Watto out for 2 and injured 3rd ball of his 1st over! Cowan 2nd top score!
twodogs
Guest
at least he valued his wicket and played straight!
Timmuh
Roar Guru
How about specialist part-time bowler if fully fit?
Pope Paul VII
Guest
If they play Faulkner as an allrounder they are stuffed. Not because he's hopeless, he's just not a test allrounder. No FC 100s. Why would he suddenly start now? If they play Haddin and Wade at 6 and 7, stuffed again. Play 6 batsmen. The best performers in the lead up matchers. Probably still stuffed as the English are a bit better, however this team needs to learn to stay in a match with good old fashioned runs instead of having fantasies about mythical all round position.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
"Faulkner is the better bowler of the two all-rounders but Watson is the superior batsman. Faulkner brings left arm variation and he swings the ball at decent pace. He is not yet good enough to bat at six in Test cricket, but his batting is improving." On form, whether Watson is currently a better batsman is highly debatable. Neither are batting well enough to be top six. Hopefully the selectors will not go down the all-rounder path at all. I expect Watson to be picked, but unless there are dramatic signs of a turnaround in the two warm-up games desparately hope not. Pattinson, Siddle, Harris pick themselves even with Harris being out for a while. Lyon is then the obvious choice, but some would prefer four seamers in some conditions and that is understandable (even if I would not do it). In which case, Starc probably gets the choice over Bird. If five bowers are needed to bowl meaningful spells, England will have scored runs and we will need six batsmen anyway. So just use four bowlers and aim for them to do the job rather than weakening already weak batting tryting to fit an a good part-timer such as Watson.
jameswm
Roar Guru
And as someone said below, throw Copeland into the mix too. Very consistent bowler, very handy bat.
James P
Guest
How much of Faulkner have you seen in first class cricket?
Disco
Roar Guru
I agree. But like O'Keefe, Khawaja, McDonald and (until now) Rogers, Copeland is far too sensible a Test selection for the NSP.
Victor
Guest
You'd think so. I actually think he'd be better value then Faulkner. Big fan of James but i'm not sure he's a test bowler just yet. I know his stats say he is but he looks like a better ODI bowler to me, copeland looks more a 4/5 day bowler and both can bat
Victor
Guest
I've been thinking the exact same thing for a while! Given we don't seem to have the batsment coming through someone like faulkner is ideal cos he'd average around 25 maybe more which realistically is what a lot of our batsmen are anyway so you don't really lose anything with the batting, but you have a guy who can take wickets as well and also still 4 bowlers if someone breaks down (would have been very handy in Adelaide). In time Wade will be good enough to bat six anyway given his battings stronger then his keeping. Pattinson coming in at 11 with a test batting average of almost 30 (thats at the moment, currently 28.77) is quite scary really. It would be like england having S.Broad batting at 11. That's the definition of really having to work hard for your 20 wickets, as opposed to having to work hard for 12 of the 20 wickets and having the last 4 of each innings dished up on a plaatter. If they can average 30 (big ask but possible) then on average that tail will be adding 150 to your total each innings. It will sound odd but given our batting weakness this aspect of our test team could end up saving us a lot of test matches, the close ones anyway, and maybe even the ashes. Chasing 250 to win and being 5/100. those 150 would become pretty handy. Vise versa if you're setting a target and you're 5 down with a lead of only 50, add another 150 and bam we've set a target of 200 and back in the match (obviously wouldn't work exactly like that but basing it on averages).That aspect of our side is going to put us in very good stead given our fragile batting. Add guys like Coulter Nile, Cutting even Sandu and cummins have shown good promise with the bat, it's a very underated commodity, bowlers who can bat. Generally it's the difference between scoring 150 and 250
John
Guest
I see Copeland is blitzing it inEngland currently, he's making the most of a timely opportunity to show what he can do in those conditions and doing it well. Leading the overall MVP speaks for itself, and has been taking English test player wickets. I read a comment from Bob Willis re his consistent accuracy and perfect line and length. Throw in he can bat and slips field surely makes him worth a thought. He is far more a test player than Starc, but sadly bowls with his right arm. Perfect for tying up an end and maintaining pressure. Again Willis commented as soon as he came off, the pressure was released. might be worth having him around as backup for the Ashes, having shown what he can do with a Duke ball. Yes, that's what Bird is there for, but if injuries prevail like normal, could Copeland be worth a shot in those conditions?
dadiggle
Guest
You can see Australian cricket is going through a lean patch. There is more talk about bowlers of 10 years ago and how good this one was there or that and favorite memories than there is about the actual topic at hand. How fkd are Australia in the Ashes with the current bowling attack I hope they grew some balls and actually take the poms to the cleaners or push them all the way than go lay down and take a beating like they did in India.
twodogs
Guest
One thing Jason, I have felt for some time now that the bowlers are over trained leading to higher injury toll re: weight sessions and bikes for example. To be a bowler I feel you have to be fit and strong but also loose. Some of our present lot seem tight and muscular. Weights tend to shorten muscles and tendons whereas bikes shorten hammies. Was your training regime more aerobic rather than strength related?