With the Ashes less than three weeks away, plenty has been said and written about Australia’s top-six frailties and precious little of it has been positive.
A fit Michael Clarke is the only genuine certainty in the eyes of observers, both at home and abroad, meaning the issue for the captain and his co-selectors is not necessarily one of just identifying the best specialist batsmen available, but rather of how to concoct the most useful batting line-up from one down to eleven.
Australia has been unable to rely on its top order for some time now, and it ambitious to expect a drastic turnaround in the fortunes of Ed Cowan, David Warner, Phil Hughes, Shane Watson and co. now facing England’s formidable attack in their own backyard.
While Brad Haddin will, Chris Rogers should and Usman Khawaja might replace some of their out-of-form countrymen, can anything but mediocrity be hoped for no matter which combination those in charge come up with?
Perhaps the hidden key is to focus on what the country is producing at the moment – namely, world-class bowlers who just happen to be above average with the bat in hand as well.
It has become more than an occasional quirk to see bowlers finish Test series with higher batting averages than a number of the men for whom runs is their primary job description.
In the recent 4-0 humiliation in India, left-arm paceman Mitchell Starc ended the tour with the team’s third-highest average at 36. Save for one measly extra single in Mohali, he would have compiled only the second individual century for the tourists in eight innings.
Peter Siddle made two half-centuries – one more than Cowan, Hughes, Matthew Wade and Steve Smith, and two more than the struggling Watson.
James Pattinson enjoyed a superior average to Australia’s then vice-captain, while the Victorian tearaway provided only one run less per innings than Hughes. This was no fluke for Pattinson, who also completed the whitewash of Sri Lanka in the Australian summer with the second-highest average behind Clarke.
The point is certainly not to suggest Australia’s bowlers are more accomplished with the willow than their batting counterparts. Averages by nature even out over time and Starc, Siddle and Pattinson are no match for Hughes, Cowan and Watson.
However, what this trio and players such as James Faulkner, Ashton Agar and even Ryan Harris offer Australia is the potential to bat a long, yet effective, tail.
Faulkner appears as likely to muscle a fifty down the order as Cowan does to plod to one at the top. And his accurate left-arm seamers and cutters could prove every bit as handy against this opponent as New Zealand’s Trent Boult and Neil Wagner did recently.
Picking Agar ahead of Nathan Lyon would be a big call, but the teenager is bowling well and appears to possess composure.
Australia might be closer to taking a gamble on his variety than some people think, and his three well-made half-centuries in 14 first-class innings will not have harmed his chances one iota.
A lot of significance is often placed on the quality of a team’s number seven. His potential output is thought to represent the ‘depth’ or otherwise of the batting order.
But what value do you place on a competent seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven in comparison to a confidence-lacking extra specialist at number six, the wicket-keeper at number seven and a traditional rabble of bunnies to follow?
Doubtless late-order partnerships are set to play an important role in the Ashes. England’s best bowlers are no mugs with the bat.
Australia might do well to accept its batting flaws are somewhat irreversible and go for all-out attack in the bowling department along with an appropriate amount of trust in the sting of the tail.
A side consisting of Hughes, Watson, Khawaja, Clarke, Rogers, Haddin, Faulkner or Starc, Agar, Pattinson, Siddle and Harris offers unprecedented bowling depth and variety – including five fast bowlers – along with one of the most talented lower-order batting groups ever assembled.
Indeed Starc, Pattinson, Siddle and Harris have all walked to the crease for their country after six dismissals.
Is it risky? Yes. Is it unconventional? Yes.
Is it a bold attacking strategy that supports Australia’s recent strengths, accepts the weaknesses and puts England’s batsmen on notice? Absolutely.
Pete B
Guest
Continually picking and then discarding new spinners hasn't worked for Australia over the past few years. Test cricket is any number of levels above state cricket and the English would quickly figure out Agar's faults and exploit them mercilessly. There would go another spin bowler on the scrap heap.
twodogs
Guest
Yeah Davos, I'd go the next step now and pick him over Lyon. He's got the numbers. Lyon has some fairly good numbers also but, you that feeling you get when you see something special? For example, I got that from warnie on debut against India ('91/92?) although success wasnt abundant, something seemed to be cooking. I've found these 'gut feels' relatively accurate over the years and, I don't get em from Lyon. Agar seems more than ready and has the goods. This same feel I got from Warner but alas, his train has derailed. Now this guy could be anything. If he can right the wreck in time, think and play straight, he'll hurt em.
Kalon Huett
Roar Rookie
I agree with that. It would be great to see a real focus on Test cricket development, and your idea to have contracts with stipulations could help that. I'd happily sign guys like Silk, Doolan, Burns, Bird and Sayers to tailored 4-day cricket contracts right now and hope it pays dividends.
davos44
Guest
I think now that cricket has had a massive money injection it is time we cross subsidized test type players ...ie indentify the talent and sign them to lucrative deals that are at least competitive with some of the t 20 money available...perhaps even stipulating to earn this contract you will have to give t 20 a miss and concentrate on the 4 day shield as there no 1 focus....and let them press for test selection from there ...why not ?
Kalon Huett
Roar Rookie
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. In the end it comes down to the type of balance you're looking for. I think our specialist batting situation is so desperate that we're almost better off just batting deep rather than thinking we can actually rely on 6 specialists to do the work they've proven they can't do. The sacrifice I'm willing to make for one of our completely out-of-form walking wickets to not be in the team is to have a less-credentialed batsman like Faulkner coming in down the order and giving us 5 specialist bowlers. No doubt it's an attacking approach, and many would say foolish. I'm aware it could fail spectacularly, but I've lost all confidence in our batting stocks to the point I'd be happy to replace one of them with an all-rounder. We've had issues bowling teams out in the second innings and I don't think four bowlers (when two of them are Siddle and Lyon) are going to be enough to blast out this opposition. I honestly believe we need 5 bowlers to get the job done because different styles suit different situations. It's very handy having that 5th bowler, especially one like Faulkner who offers something quite different to the rest of the attack. I can see Faulkner being dangerous on 4th and 5th-day pitches with all his variety - more so than Lyon that's for sure. Just to be clear, if Watson was 100% fit to bowl as much as we needed him and Mike Hussey was still around at number six, I'd scrap this and go with a more conventional line-up. I wish we had 6 international-class batsmen (one of who could bowl tidily when required) so this debate didn't even need to be had.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
Kalon, Your argument seems to fall apart with theses stats, Faulkner's batting average is worse than Henriques but your suggesting Faulkner comes in at 7 to improve the batting. Henriques' batting average has improved over the last couple of season whereas Faulkner's has, if anything, gone backwards. Faulkner replacing Watson, batting at 7, could well be in CA's thoughts for the Ashes, but it doesn't mean its a good idea. CA's recent selection policies don't inspire too many with confidence. See my post below for an extended discussion on top 7 selection for the Ashes.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
I think its fundamentally wrong to select bowlers for their batting and batsmen for their bowling, you strengthen your batting by selecting more batsmen not by selecting the bowlers who bat the best. CA essentially used your 5-1-5 theory for the Sydney Test against, an under manned, Sri Lanka, selecting Johnson to bat at 7. We won the match convincing, but no more convincingly than the other two matches in the series, I thought the general consensus was it didn't work and shouldn't be tried again. Johnson has an overall Test average of 21.96, 31.43 since the start of the 2011/12 season (2011/12+). Starc has a Test average of 32.7 from his 14 innings, including 4 NO's and HS of 99, 2011/12+, so he would surely be ahead of Faulkner, who has a first class average of 28.71 from 32 innings with just 5 50's and HS of 89, 2011/12+. The 50's Siddle scored in India were his only first class 50's and he has a Test average, 2011/12+, of just 15.76, although his valuing of his wicket means he can be a useful partner for recognized batsmen. The extremely poor form of our top 6 batsmen over the last two years, particularly Hughes (2011/12+: 25.62) and Watson (2011/12+: 25.71), does create complications, because both have been selected in the Ashes squad. Three bowlers in the squad, actually, 2011/12+ averages: Starc (32.70), Pattinson (28.78) and Harris (27.40). Based purely on 2011/12+ Test averages for Australia our top 7 would be: Warner(39.47), Cowan(32.90), Ponting(38.74), Clarke(72.47), Hussey(44.88), Smith(40.25), Wade(34.61) If we limit ourselves to those actually in the Ashes squad, Starc and Pattinson make an appearance: Warner(39.47), Cowan(32.90), Clarke(72.47), Khawaja(29.00), Wade(34.61), Starc(32.70), Pattinson(28.78) We do, however, have Rogers with a 2011/12+ first class average of 41.76 who is, surely, likely to be a more dependable option than either Starc or Pattinson. Haddin, rightly or wrongly, as vc needs to be included. Gives a top 7 of: Warner(39.47), Cowan(32.90), Rogers, Clarke(72.47), Wade(34.61), Haddin(26.08), Starc(32.70) Starc does, however, have an overall first class average of 24.53, compared with Khawaja's 42.62, 36.70 2011/12+, so this, I think, gives Khawaja the top 7 selection edge. This gives us a top 7 of: Warner(39.47), Cowan(32.90), Rogers, Clarke(72.47), Khawaja(29.00), Wade(34.61), Haddin(26.08) With our current squad that about the most solid batting line up, I think, we have. Starc could come in at 8, followed by Pattinson, Harris and Lyon, but only if his bowling warrants it, otherwise I'd pick Bird, as long as he's bowling well. Siddle comes in, if neither Starc or Bird aren't performing.
Kalon Huett
Roar Rookie
I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I think there's a strong chance Agar will be in the Test team by the time England comes to Australia. Deep down, away from the public backing, I'm not convinced Clarke has a lot of faith in Lyon. I think he'd ideally love to have a spinner who could loop the ball and turn it back, and genuinely threaten international batsmen. As an Australian fan I hope Lyon proves me wrong. But I predict a pretty tough time of it for him in England against these right-handers.
Andy_Roo
Roar Guru
Kyly Clarke and Ellyse Perry, now we're talking.
Anthony D'Arcy
Roar Pro
I've always been of the opinion that if you pick your best six batsmen, your best keeper/batsman (sadly Paine's injuries have buggered his form, but hopefully he can find something soon!) and your best four bowlers you'll either win or be at the least competitive each match. That's all I want from the selectors, that's all I want from the team. No all-rounders unless they can justify their position as either a batsman or a bowler.
JGK
Roar Guru
Can we please stop picking Hughes in these "future" teams. It's depressing enough that he's in the current team let alone the notion that he is one of the saviours of Aust cricket.
JGK
Roar Guru
If it's Stephanie Rice, just make sure your health insurance is paid up.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
You could similarly ask who will be Australia's best batsman in 3 years? Who will be Australia's best paceman in 3 years? Who will be Australia's keeper in 3 years? Who will be Australia's captain in 3 years? No one knows. I think, on ability and experience, Lyon is Australia's best spin option for right now. Not to mention the side desperately needs all the cohesion and stability it can muster given the impending overhaul of its top order and the dumping of its keeper. Adding to that mix a 19yo debutant spinner would not help. Agar is a terrific prospect who bowls with great loop and genuinely rips the ball, both of which are things Lyon has neglected to do at times. But throwing a teenager tweaker into the cauldron of an Ashes in England when he is yet to prove he is incontestably better than the incumbent would be madness. Agar needs to be given time to develop. Best case scenario is that he gets at least 30 to 40 FC games under his belt before his Test debut. Hopefully he and Lyon will be in fierce competition for the next decade.
Kalon Huett
Roar Rookie
Henriques has a first class batting average of 31.67 and a bowling average of 27.16. Faulkner has a first class batting average of 29.11 and a bowling average of 22.34. Henriques has batted at 7 for Australia and proved toothless with the ball. So just how crazy is it to suggest Faulkner might be picked at 7 in England? As far as I can see, not that crazy at all. I don't think the selectors are looking at Faulkner as a possible third seamer ahead of any of the big 5. They're thinking about him as a number 7 in the event Watson a) doesn't get picked, or b) can't bowl. I'm surprised more people don't see this as a viable option and one that we may very well be watching in two and a half weeks.
Kalon Huett
Roar Rookie
Sorry you're right, I got a bit carried away. But he has batted in the top 7, which essentially means he's playing as a batting all-rounder for his country and his first class batting record is nothing to write home about. The fact he slotted in behind Wade in the order pretty much shows where he's at as a batsman. Does anyone think Henriques or Maxwell are all that more accomplished batsmen than Faulkner? Maybe slightly, but there wouldn't be much in it. And Faulkner is twice the bowler either of them are. My suggestion is that Faulkner at 7 is not THAT different to what we have done in recent times already. It's certainly not as far-fetched as some people seem to think it is.
Kalon Huett
Roar Rookie
Do you think Lyon has the tools that Ajmal and Swann have? It's not always just a matter of time; it also depends on the action and the capabilities of that action. Is Nathan Hauritz the complete package now that he wasn't six years ago? I'd say he's pretty much the same old Nathan Hauritz. And it wouldn't surprise me if Nathan Lyon remains the same Nathan Lyon, perhaps slightly more consistent and wiser. Here's the big question: do you think Nathan Lyon will be Australia's number one spinner in 3 years? I'm prepared to confidently say no. I don't even think he's a better bowler than Jon Holland - he's just had more international exposure which means he's obviously more experienced right now. I believe Holland would take more wickets at Test level.
Kalon Huett
Roar Rookie
Add Cummins to that, if he ever manages to stay on the field. Personally I think he's more far talented than even Pattinson, but his body is still a huge concern.
Kalon Huett
Roar Rookie
Perhaps in the not too distant future we'll see something like: Hughes Silk Khawaja Clarke Smith Wade Faulkner Starc Agar Pattinson Sayers/Bird Next in line: Doolan Burns Paine Siddle Holland
Tim
Guest
Im sure she would be on both our call back list Andy ;)
Kalon Huett
Roar Rookie
He's not far away at all, but I do still query his ability against quality swing building. I get the feeling he'd be a nicker at international level where they'll probe around his off stump more consistently. Very talented and improved player, though, and at least he belongs at six unlike our plethora of left-handed opening batsmen. And like Warner, you could add a few numbers to his batting average from fielding ability alone.