James Faulkner is the best first-class cricketer outside the Australian Test side. But the 23-year-old all-rounder does not have an obvious future position in the Test XI.
His bowling is his strong suit, as evidenced by his sensational first-class record of 142 wickets at 23.
Faulkner’s strike rate of 46 is phenomenal and proves he is a genuine wicket taker. Yet the perception seems to be that he is more of a support bowler than a strike weapon.
Those who matter within the Australian Test setup do not view him as a frontline quick.
There is a definite bias under the leadership of Aussie coach Darren Lehmann towards intimidating pacemen who can nudge the speed gun towards 145 kilometres per hour and beyond.
Despite his heroism and consistency in recent years, Peter Siddle was dumped for the deciding Test in South Africa largely on the basis that he was not bowling sharp enough.
Faulkner does not fit the mould of the prototype paceman currently being favoured by the Australian selectors.
While he is capable of bowling at slightly more than 140 kilometres per hour, he is more comfortable operating in the mid-130s.
Rather than bombarding the batsman with bouncers and high-velocity yorkers, Faulkner’s weapon is variety.
Faulkner can conjure subtle swing in both directions, garner movement off the pitch with his cutters, and boasts several well-disguised slower balls.
He is well-equipped to be a third quick, one capable of delivering long spells, tying up an end and breaking partnerships with his guile.
This is the role which Siddle has fulfilled admirably, yet with little fanfare. But Siddle’s career is now in jeopardy.
Over the past 18 months he has been reduced to a medium pacer and, turning 30 this year, it remains to be seen whether he can regain the extra 10 kilometres per hour the selectors seem to want from him.
Shane Watson was moved to six during the Tests against the Proteas, with the idea being that this would freshen him up to bowl more overs.
Watson’s function as a bowler is very similar to that of Siddle. The selectors may well be aiming to use him as the holding bowler, while fielding three aggressive quicks as they did in the final Test against South Africa.
Therefore, it is hard to imagine Faulkner being selected as a third paceman to complement Mitchell Johnson and Ryan Harris, if and when the veteran returns from knee surgery.
James Pattinson, Mitchell Starc, Nathan Coulter-Nile and Josh Hazlewood, who starred in the Sheffield Shield final, are the kind of bowlers the Aussies will likely lean towards.
All are very tall, can rough up batsmen, and have been clocked at, or close to, 150 kilometres per hour.
Lehmann stated in the wake of the Ashes in England that Faulkner was viewed not as a specialist bowler but as the backup all-rounder for Watson.
The Tasmanian is somewhat underrated with the blade at first-class level. His most captivating feats with the bat have come in international limited overs cricket in the past six months.
However, he is a far different operator in the longest form of the game. In first-class cricket he is a circumspect batsman who has often fought patient rearguard actions for Tasmania in the Shield.
From what I have seen of him at that level, he is a better player than his career average of 31 suggests. But it cannot be ignored that he is yet to register a century.
It seems unlikely that he will be viewed as a long-term solution at six for Australia unless he can rectify that situation.
I think he has the requisite talent, technique and temperament to average 40-plus in Shield or county cricket.
But, until he does, he could remain stuck in no-man’s land – not considered lethal enough with the ball or reliable enough with the blade.
That would be a great shame, as he is an outstanding first-class player.
Deccas
Guest
Flintoff was a bowling allrounder and he was incredibly useful. It does rely on Faulkner getting to the point where he can bat in the top 6 without us feeling like thats a liability.
Richard
Guest
I think its a fairly simple equation. If Watson can't bowl then Faulkner comes in(if he is fit), Lehman has said as much. I think he would have come in for Watson in SA if he had been fit. He needs to be tried at test level, the selectors are waiting to give him that opportunity, he just needs to be fit at the right time. Watson is on the outer IMO, since Lehmann came in. He has been moved down the order and has been told if you can't bowl you are out. Given that he is injured more often than not and can't bowl, his days must be short in number. Faulkner has to be given an opportunity. He is young competitive and will improve in the test environment IMO. He is the perfect candidate for test team renewal.
Deep Thinker
Guest
Birds numbers are too hard to ignore. Johnson and Harris pick themselves. Pattinson has been very good at test level and deserves to be picked until he's fails (which probably wont happen). Bird for me is next in line and a long term prospect. Unfortunately he needs to wait and may be leapfrogged by Starc when he matures. It is very unfortunate being an Australian pace bowler right now. Lots of good bowlers don't even rate a mention.
Francis Curro
Roar Pro
I think at test level, batting allrounders are more useful, just because all you ever want from an allrounder is to a few overs to break partnerships and some steady pace. Him at 7 makes the batting a bit week. I think he is an awesome ODI no. 7 however.
deccas
Guest
Watson is the better batsmen of the two, I don't think anyone would really argue that. But Faulkner has the better temperament for that situation. I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with it, but I do think the argument could be made that you'd rather faulkner. Its rather a moot point at this point in time, Watson is the incumbent and will be around for a little while yet. I do think that part of moving Watson down to six was so the batting order would need less rejigging when Faulkner comes in to replace him. As such I think he will find himself at either 6 or 7 in the next few years. The lack of a century is a downer, but he has made them in ODIs hasn't he? I think once he gets there, he will do it more regularly. IN 15 years time I think there might be a roar article trying to place Faulkner in the pantheon of great allrounders, I think he will average 35 batting either 6 or 7 and average close to 25 in the strongest Australian fast bowling line up ever. With Faulkner Pattinson Smith and Silk and Warner Australian cricket could look very good in about 5 years
Beauty of a geek brains of a bimbo(atgm)
Guest
I say dump watson nd pump faulkner
Showbags
Guest
Where did I say I've drawn a line through him? He needs plenty of work to make the Australian team and what he currently provides is not good enough to command a place in the team solely as a bowler or a batsmen (which should be the proviso of every team). If you can't command a spot on one discipline then you are a bits and pieces player I'm sorry to say.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Good to see you've drawn a line through a 23yo. Very sage.
Deep Thinker
Guest
The team needs a bowling all-rounder. Our batting stocks are thin so we need lower order runs to consistently make good scores.
Deep Thinker
Guest
Rob from wherever the hell you're from, I mostly agree with you, but its not that simple to just pick the best players. You need to pick good players who can offer different things to the overall team. Right now, the team needs Faulkner, but if the batting becomes a more stable unit he might find it hard to keep his spot. On current performance, Faulkner should not play as a batting all rounder. A batting all rounder bowls the 'spare overs' to ensure that the primary pace bowlers get sufficient rest in between spells. Unless you are consistently skittling teams for under 300, a batting all-rounder is essential. Faulkner's problem is that he's a bowling all-rounder so isn't appropriate to fill that role. (For the record, when Watson retires, I see Maxwell taking over that role) What Faulkner provides is a reliable primary bowling option but despite good numbers would not be top 3 material. But he also provides lower order runs which is desperately needed given that batting stocks are so thin. I see him as good enough to do that and could successfully fill a Shaun Pollock type role without necessarily being a Shaun Pollock quality bowler. The difficulty for me is competition for spots. Harris, Pattinson and Johnson have nailed their spots. Starc has the most potential of all the bowlers but needs to refine his game. Bird is arguably the best bowler in Australia right now but can't find a way in. Siddle may find his mojo again and there are plenty of other bowlers feasting on very poor shield batting line ups with very good stats. Faulkner won't look out of place at international level, but he will be picked to paper over the cracks in the batting not for his bowling alone.
Showbags
Guest
Wow that is a bad team. We would struggle to beat Nepal with that lot. Maddinson is so far off test standard it isn't funny, can't believe you would mention him.
Showbags
Guest
Have you ever actually watched him bowl. He is not quick enough, doesn't swing the ball 1 millimetre, and lacks penetration. He is not a top 3 fast bowler no matter what his stats may say. He would only ever be picked in the team because he does "a bit of everything", which is the definition of a bits and pieces player (though he is a better standard bowler than your average bits and pieces player, ill give you that).
Bob Sims
Guest
Faulkner is just one of a few in that category. Hughes, Smith, Pattinson, Maxwell and starc are all right alongside him.
Nudge
Guest
I could possibly see Mitchplay another 4 years. He is an absolute cracking athlete
Clavers
Guest
I agree that you have identified Question 1, but I thought it was the opposite answer that was required.
Christian D'Aloia
Roar Guru
How is Carters' wicketkeeping though? He's not the best in NSW, but could it still develop into Test standard at some point in the future?
James T
Guest
Now that watsons moved to 6 who do u want coming in at 4/50 Watson or Faulkner. It all depends if they want someone to fill some overs or a genuine fifth bowler
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
He has a great deal of potential but he's still young and I don't think he's 'there' under pressure yet.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Bird's issue on the Ashes tour was that he can't swing the Dukes ball. That was evident in the tour matches too and on his tour of Eng with Aus A in 2012. But it is a different story with the Kookaburra ball, he swings that consistently.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Mitch is extremely fit and durable, he moves and bowls like a guy in his mid-20s. I'd like to see him scale back his limited overs involvement after the World Cup in Aus in 12 months and concentrate on Tests. If he does that he could play another 2-3 years.