Australia’s attack must be overhauled for the second Test against Pakistan next week after the side’s most toothless bowling display since the calamitous tour of India last year.
Not since Murali Vijay and Shikkar Dhawan blazed an opening stand of 289 in Chandigarh in March last year have Australia’s bowlers been treated with such contempt.
Not since 1994 have three or more Pakistan batsmen scored tons in a Test against Australia. Not since the first session of this current match in Dubai has Australia’s attack looked potent.
Bear in mind this is an Australian side which had won seven of its last eight Tests, including an upset series victory over South Africa, from whom they briefly pinched the world’s number one ranking.
Remember this is a Pakistan side with a famously fickle batting line-up, which in its previous 24 Test innings had only nine times managed to score 300 or better.
Yet in this match they have made Australia’s much-vaunted bowling unit look akin to an English Test attack from the 1990s.
The problem does not lie with Australia’s quicks. On a surface which has offered them no pace, minimal bounce and negligible seam movement, they could not reasonably be expected to be match winners.
Mitchell Johnson has been magnificent. Until Pakistan’s batsman started swinging from the hip in the second session yesterday, Peter Siddle had also been admirably tight, conceding just 66 runs from his first 35 overs in the match.
That is not to suggest that Siddle should take no responsibility for the side’s predicament. His job is to take wickets and he has not done that. But for the majority of the match he made Pakistan’s batsmen labour intensely for their runs and built pressure upon which Australia’s spinners failed to capitalise.
It was clear from the first session of the match that Pakistan intended to target Nathan Lyon and Steve O’Keefe, who represented their easiest avenues for scoring. This is the ideal situation for a canny spinner – they want batsmen taking them on. But experienced campaigner Lyon and debutant O’Keefe have been toyed with by the Pakistan batsmen.
Neither has looked likely to make a breakthrough throughout the majority of their spells. The four wickets they reaped together in the first innings were snared during the cricketing equivalent of “junk time” as the Pakistan players heaved the willow with abandon.
Australia selected two spinners on the basis that the Dubai pitch looked dry and was expected to offer turn. While it didn’t grip significantly in the first dig, it remained the kind of surface on which a team relies upon its slow bowlers.
In the second innings there was considerable assistance for Lyon and O’Keefe yet, again, both were innocuous. Lyon, as the senior tweaker, had to lead the way. But he has looked unsure of the best approach to take against the Pakistanis. He has often lapsed into bowling with a flatter trajectory than the one he utilises when he is at his best.
Lyon has also tended to bowl slightly short, allowing the Pakistan too much time to play him off the pitch.
O’Keefe, meanwhile, has arguably been even less threatening than Lyon. While I am loath to judge a player too harshly on his first appearance at Test level, he simply has not done enough to retain his position for the second Test at Abu Dhabi.
Given the ease with which the Pakistan batsmen have played Australia’s slow bowlers it would appear likely that the tourists will not field two frontline spinners next week.
If they make that decision then O’Keefe seems the more likely player to make way. Lyon’s efforts may have been disappointing here but he has been a valuable member of the side the past 12 months and deserves leniency.
That leaves backup quicks Ben Hilfenhaus and Mitchell Starc to compete for the fourth bowling position. While bowling all-rounder James Faulkner is also in the squad it is unlikely he would get a gig ahead of one of that pair.
Even if Australia manage to save this Test and head to Abu Dhabi with a chance of winning the series, they will surely be fielding a renovated attack.
Bearfax
Guest
Australia drop O'Keefe for Starc for second test. Yeh, real smart move. Drop one of the two players who has been getting you wickets. And I thought Rod Marsh and Lehmann were smart. A kindergarten student could see where that would lead you.
Bearfax
Guest
There's probably a lot to what you are saying Bob. Certainly the Pakie spin bowlers were much more successful and they are well used to the type of grounds that exist in those regions. I wonder how good they would be on Australian grounds compared to our spinners though. And I suspect the difference was accentuated by the poor batting of Australia's line up. Take Warner, Smith, Rogers and Johnson out and the rest did not seem to have a clue how to handle the conditions and the nature of the spin bowling. With experience this no doubt will change as shown by how Warner and Smith handle it compared to their efforts a year or two back. But I wonder if enough will have been learned since the first test by the rest to make Australia sufficiently competitive.
Bob Sims
Guest
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a Roar article generate so much discussion and comment - a lot of it pure garbage. Let's get a few things straight. Once the selectors decided they were going to take two spinners on this tour, and subsequently, into the Tests, it was always going to be Lyon and O'Keefe. They both deserved their selection, so let's have an end to the argument over that. I'm a huge Lyon fan. He is definitely the best we've had since the Warne/MacGill era. However, I believe he was outbowled by O'Keefe in the first Test, regardless of dropped catches or captaincy decisions (which I think were poor - looked like Clarke was asleep at the wheel at times). What the first Test underlined was that there is a huge gulf between Australia's spinners and the Asian spinners. Given that, perhaps it could be argued that Australia should stick to their strength and pick three front-line quicks with guys like Maxwell, Smith, Clarke and even Warner to take up the slack with a few overs of spin when the quicks need a rest. Might seem harsh on the specialist spinners, but when a very special one announces himself, the policy can change. A bit like the all-rounder argument - don't just pick one because "there has to be one in the side", but rather when his performances demand that he be chosen.
Bob Sims
Guest
Got it in one!
Armchair Expert
Guest
That's an impressive CV Don, now it's time to chill out and give O'Keefe a break.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
I agree. I'm not really blaming our bowlers at all even though people seem to want one of them dropped. I felt a bit for Marsh. Watching others struggle before you in the line-up is hardly confidence building. Except that he'd be used to that by now having played for one of the frailest batting line-ups in Shield cricket.
jammel
Guest
Can I un-subscribe from the Joel and Don chain of comments please? I think they disagree. Or maybe Joel and Don could give their personal emails to each other…..
Joel
Roar Rookie
Well I guess it's no different to considering someone petulant for not agreeing with yours, wouldn't it Don? Knowing how long you've actively been part of the game, I would think you could at least put into words your thoughts on why O'Keefe can't make it. Is it mental, technical or mechanical? If you were his coach, what would you be telling him he needs to do to make him a better bowler? Come on champ, give me all your years of experience for this one. And don't cop out by saying you would tell him to give up cos he's not good enough or anything along those lines. Come on, a bit of Don's wisdom here if you would be so kind..
Don Freo
Guest
When you resort to terms like "arrogance" to describe someone who doesn't embrace your opinion, there's no longer any point in exchanging opinion. Just to answer your enquiry. I have been watching cricket for over 50 years. Played it since I was 10, playing seniors since I was 15 and played for 35 years...then umpired for 8 years. I have been in club administration or committees since I was 17 and coached both seniors and juniors for 25 years. You?
Joel
Roar Rookie
My questions aren't strange and I'm not reshaping anything. I am trying to work out the kind of arrogance that it takes to write off someone at that level based on nothing. And it really is nothing. You've given no reason for doing so except that he's boring to watch. What are your cricket credentials Don? Where do you get the expertise to know the limitations of a professional sportsman? Is it from years of watching cricket on tv or do you have actual cricketing knowledge beyond "knowing the game"? Your statements about O'Keefe including your most recent about his limitations as a bowler are completely contradicted by his bowling record. He has found wickets that other spinners here have not, and has gone for less runs in between each one. There is nothing to indicate that he has been bashed around and got fortunate wickets, in fact there's nothing to indicate that he is anything less than an astute slow bowler. But go right on ahead and dismiss the question because you don't have an answer, like usual. I just love the fact that he gets to wear the baggy green and play for Australia while all you get to do is sit and watch and snivel about how he shouldn't be playing.
Don Freo
Guest
Once again you miss the point, Joel. I am amazed at how hard you are trying to re-shape a statement to suit your next come-back. It is about cricket, not aesthetics and not statistics. He does bore me...that's why I don't like watching him...but it is his limitation as a cricketer that I am talking about...and have been. I'll make my next comment about SOK when the Test starts...your comments are getting really strange.
Don Freo
Guest
I'm not suggesting Clarke used SOK to make him fail. How could you possibly construe that meaning unless you have a predisposed reading fixed in your mind to feed the next argument? He used SOK to give him a chance to succeed. SOK failed independently of Clarke. He failed in his own right. Of course Lyon was disadvantaged by dropped catches. You only have to read your comments that wave SOK's four wickets against Lyon's 2 to see the disadvantage. He won't be disadvantaged in the minds of the selectors but to the SOKcult he will.
Joel
Roar Rookie
"Enjoyable cricket analysis is about cricket…not mathematics" So what you're saying Don, is that the reason you hate O'Keefe so much is that you don't enjoy watching him bowl... even if he's the best spinner we have at the moment by a country mile?
Don Freo
Guest
There are many things about which you seem convinced that are not necessarily right. Batting position is irrelevant if the state of the game makes it irrelevant. The dismissal of top order batsmen cheaply in the normal flow of a game might be a useful signifier...but not when a score is out of control. Enjoyable cricket analysis is about cricket...not mathematics.
Bearfax
Guest
Don I am convinced that you are just a big stirrer trying to stir up the forum. Too many of your statements are beginning to contradict each other. This latest one about 'it doesnt matter what position they batted when they scored mammoth amounts, is not entirely accurate. he got two players out for 89 and 131 but the other two for 30 and 2. Lyon.s two wickets were for 109 and 0. The point is no one else was getting the wickets so why attack O'Keefe because he does get them. Further it was you who maintained that most of O'Keefe's wickets were bowlers. I showed that in the last Shield season his wickets were 50/50 whereas Lyons was about 35/65. I was merely giving another example that three of O'Keefe's wickets were batsmen. Thing is Don, O'Keefe may not have set the game on fire at this stage. But what spin bowler for Australia has since Warne and MacGill's retirements. There is just no one else within cooee of O'Keefe's Shield performances and almost all spin bowlers tried in recent years have been even less successful than O'Keefe. Lyon has been the only one to show any form at test level and even his efforts are at best fair. And suggesting Clarke used O'Keefe to make him fail and Lyon was disadvantaged by dropped catches. Truly Don. You'll have to do a lot better than that.
Don Freo
Guest
I am not a passionate fan of Lyon, neither is he my hero. He is struggling. I have not advocated the selection of Agar at all. Just let it go... Let the weekend Test be completed and this strange argument can trot off into the sunset with SOK's Test career.
Joel
Roar Rookie
Don, if he was bowling garbage ball after ball he would have been hammered around the park. As it was he took more wickets and went for less runs per over than your hero Nathan Lyon. It is amusing though how you consistently overlook fact to suit your own opinion. You are still yet to validate your argument when it comes to O'Keefe outside of you "knowing about cricket". How can someone that is supposed to know the game so well come down so hard on a good bowler, and in the same breath advocate picking Agar to do the same job?
Don Freo
Guest
It doesn't matter what position they batted when they all scored mammoth amounts. You are hoist on your own petard here. Stats don't indicate that the wicket was another pathetic ball...fodder for the 3 people in the crowd and mishit only because he was tired from doing it 79 times with previous junk. Meanwhile, Garry is deceiving the batsman and having Doolan and Haddin drop the chances he created. Has Mr Subramanium captured that on the scoresheet? Clark was well past trying to win the game in the second dig. He was giving SOK enough rope to hang himself...which he has done. Thankfully, after this weekend, the SOK argument will have been put to bed for the rest of his Shield (more likely grade) career.
Bearfax
Guest
Don, O'Keefe took four wickets from 57 overs for 219 runs. Lyon took 2 wickets from 55 overs for 220 runs. O'Keefe snared the wickets of the No 1, 2, 6 and 8 batsmen while Lyon snared the No 7 and 10 batsmen. But Lyon bowled more overs than O'Keefe in the first innings (37 to 30) while the reverse happened in the second (27-18). The decision to bowl O'Keefe more in the second was Clarke's and obviously because he was able to get wickets while Lyon wasnt. Clarke wasnt going to give O'Keefe freebees when he was trying to win the game. He thought O'Keefe was the better option obviously.
Armchair Expert
Guest
For memory, I think McGill was statistically around half a run better shield bowler than Warne, O'Keefe's a 20+ run per wicket better shield bowler than Lyon.