It’s more than three years since Peter Siddle played a one day international for Australia. It’s been two years for Ryan Harris.
Nathan Lyon has played in just two in total. All three of these Test bowlers have clearly been branded Test specialists by the national selection panel.
The question is why?
The only current Test bowler who’s consistently played one-dayers over that period is Mitchell Johnson, and you can largely put that down to the fact he has only played in around half of Australia’s Tests in the past few seasons.
Compare these numbers to the previous generation of quicks.
Glenn McGrath played in 250 ODIs throughout his career, culminating in a World Cup swansong in 2007 at the age of 37. Brett Lee played in all formats of the game until he was 34.
Even Jason Gillespie, who spent a lot of time on the sidelines through injury, managed to eke out almost 100 ODIs for Australia, including as a member of the World Cup squad in 2003.
Big time tournaments require big name players.
Is there a legitimate reason for this demarcation in bowling selection other than player workload management?
By all means, Ryan Harris needs to be managed carefully given his dodgy knees and track record of injury, but it’s hard to imagine a handful of 10 over spells in the space of two weeks would be significantly detrimental.
Moreover, Harris needs to stay match fit with a tough three Test tour in South Africa on the horizon and the Sydney Test having finished almost two weeks ago.
As for the continual selection of Xavier Doherty over Lyon for the spinning role – I’m as confused as Ronan O’Connell.
Or is resting star bowlers simply an indication of how unserious one day games are being viewed by administrators? If so, how much longer can this format be sustained?
One dayers are seemingly in no man’s land right now – not robust enough for the purist, and not frenetic enough for the new age fan.
Test cricket is the unquestioned pinnacle of the sport, but plenty of Test stars have been equally effective in the shorter formats over the years.
At the same time it does make sense to expose younger bowlers to international cricket via the shorter formats, especially in so called ‘meaningless series’. That doesn’t mean the senior quicks need to be benched entirely though.
Incidentally, it seems any ODI match not part of the World Cup or Champions Trophy is labelled ‘meaningless’, perhaps reflecting the public’s cold attitude towards cricket’s ‘middle child’ right now.
However, with the 2015 World Cup just around the corner and on home soil, it makes sense to have the best bowlers in contention for a selection berth.
There’s a big difference between being ‘rotated’ in and out of the side and being overlooked altogether, which appears to be the cards handed to Siddle and Harris.
We’re all too aware of how quickly our fast bowling stocks can be depleted, so it makes sense our best bowlers have their short-form skills finely tuned should they be required.
Bolts
Guest
Doherty is clearly a better short form bowler than Lyon, watch them bowl in the T20 to compare
Pottering
Guest
I think the selectors have basically got it right. Why play Harris who was in doubt for the last test because of soreness in a series that really means very little and comes right before a major confrontation with South Africa? Siddle likewise has shown that you cannot just bowl him relentlessly. Both these guys correctly put in cotton wool for SA. This then gives Pattinson a chance to ease back into senior cricket and Coulter-Nile to show where he's at.
Buk
Guest
I see the problem is Australian depth of talent over the years. In the past it was Joe Smith averaging 50 in state games but not in the test team because we already had a winning team with well-performing established stars there. So they give him a run in the ODI side. Now its our current crop of bowling talent which is superfluous to our test needs, so we have to give them a run in the ODI's.
Paulus of Sydneygrad
Guest
Adam tonight's game demonstrates what the selectors have decided about this England side -- they aren't good enough to demand the Australian First XI. The Poms have repeatedly shown on this tour that they can't win the big moments, and then you can see the shoulders slump and they've conceded the game. The frequency of ODIs has devalued them. Other than a World Cup, is there any real interest in ODIs any more? I think that other than as a preparation for the World Cup, ODIs such as the present series are just expected as part of the season and pad it out to fill coffers. Next season we'll be reminded that we put the Poms to the sword in these ODIs, but none of us will remember any details.
Aransan
Guest
Simoc, the following quote is from an article by Andrew Wu in the SMH of 1/1/2013: "I'll just go home now and have a mini pre-season which is going to be a good thing leading into India," Siddle said. "I'll get a month where I can just work on my fitness, get my body right and get rid of any little niggles that are around and just freshen up which I think will put me in good stead." I didn't hear Siddle's remark while commentating.
Simoc
Guest
Siddle doesn't suscribe to that notion because he stated the opposite while commentating. ODIs are an excellent chance to blood a few players with experienced players. The result is forgotten by the next game and we're looking for entertainment which T20 provides in less than half the time. So it is a money raiser and that is just fine because there are very few nations that support test cricket by their people paying to watch the game in person. There is Australia and England and sometimes India. You can easily count the spectators at many test venues among the other test playing nations.
JGK
Roar Guru
I've got no problem with our best test bowlers not playing white ball cricket.
Aransan
Guest
Perhaps fast bowlers just need time away from playing at the top level to be able to exercise and maintain their fitness, like a footballer's pre-season. I think Siddle subscribes to this notion. I know that Courtney Walsh and Glen McGrath have both stated that bowlers can keep their form better by bowling regularly but both were down on pace in the latter stages of their careers and so perhaps didn't need the same fitness as express fast bowlers and of course they would have built up a high level of strength through their long careers.
Brendon
Guest
You mentioned Gillespie. While playing his last test Gillespie turned 31. Johnson and Harris are older than him. Gillespie hit the wall during the 2005 Ashes, at the age of 30, because he hadn't had an injury for awhile. While Gillespie was recovering from injuries he was also freshening up. During 2004 and 2005 Gillespie played 21 of this 71 tests even though his test career lasted 10 years. His average during 2004-2005 was 31.43. Thats 5.3 runs above his career average. He also played 40 of his 97 during 2004-2005 and again his average was above his career average. You could not have picked a worse example to undermine and destroy your whole argument than Gillespie. A guy who became stale, medium pacer because of over playing. To put things in perspective Craig McDermott retired at age 30. Merv Hughes lased until he was 33 and a 1/2. He also only played 33 ODI's. If we want fast bowlers to last past the age of 30 and remain effective then we must limit and rotate them in ODI's and T20. Just sometimes maybe administrators know more than arm chair experts?
Statler and Waldorf
Roar Guru
I agree - the "best bowler" is different for test and 50 over and T20 games
HK47
Guest
Harris ahead of the ODI player of the year Clint McKay?
Jammel
Guest
I think it's ok to experiment in ODIs other than in a World Cup context. But even then Siddle wouldn't play. I think if Australia were to play in a World Cup final tomorrow and everyone was available this would be our best XI: Warner Finch Watson Clarke Bailey Maxwell Haddin Faulkner Johnson Harris Lyon SSmith as 12th man
Francis Curro
Roar Pro
Siddle is not really an ODI bowler anyway. His style is to continually plug away at a length, more suited to the longer game. He doesn't have to slower balls or changes of pace to be effective as a McKay or a Faulkner.
Slane
Guest
Crowds are abysmal... Just double NRL or A-League crowds. Abysmal.
Brett McKay
Expert
The answer, Adam, is probably that the best Test bowlers are not necessarily the best ODI bowlers, just as the opposite is almost certainly true. But also, the examples you've cited aren't brilliant. "It’s more than three years since Peter Siddle played a one day international for Australia." - Off his own bat, Siddle stood down from ODs from Victoria even, in that same time, wanting to concentrate on longer form cricket. That's not the selectors branding him anything, that's him making himself unavailable. He's now said he wants to play more cricket in general, and will play a BBL game this week. In the grand scheme of ODI bowlers though, he'd be down the list just based on how long it's been since he last played. "It’s been two years for Ryan Harris." - How much of those two years was Harris injured? Generally speaking, whenever Harris has been fit, he's played for Australia in whatever form. I genuinely can't recall him being overlooked at any time he was fully fit. "Nathan Lyon has played in just two in total." - and both of those were last summer. Australia only tend to play one specialist spinner in ODIs (spinning allrounders and Glenn Maxwell notwithstanding). Again, that's not the selectors branding him a 'TMO' player, it's just that Xavier Doherty has been doing the job required.
Andrew
Guest
I personally believe that the selectors have gone the other way with picking the batting and bowling. They are being picked on 20/20 form rather than test form for ODI's. I see some merit in this for the fact that 20/20 bowling is more defensive. Bowlers need to bowl variety including wide yorkers, slow bouncers, cutters much more or be hit out the ground. For tests you can use patience and tactics to get the wickets and can concede runs to do so. Johnson seems the only exception to this probably due to his extreme pace.
fishes
Guest
2 innings each of 25 overs would be alright.
Matt Sterne
Roar Rookie
Who says the thrill is gone? I still don't miss a single ODI that the Aussies are playing, whether it's at the SCG or broadcast from India at some ridiculous hour of the night... Every 2nd or 3rd game between the top nations is exciting to watch and every game has it's moments.
Mits
Guest
Think the ODI's are a great way to have a look at our next up and coming paceman. McKay will likely never play test cricket again but is a cagey quick and good at taking the pace off the ball and is difficult to play. Guys like Starc, Cummins, Harris, Johnson etc all graduated to the test team from their ODI form. When we've got as many as 10 bowlers who are of international standard, it makes sense to give ODI's to some of the younger blokes (as long as their form permits so) as an audition for potential future test spots
Aransan
Guest
20/20 seems to be vey popular, has reducing 50/50 to say 35/35 been considered?