- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Australia look likely to field an all left-arm attack at times in the upcoming World Cup.
Mitchell Johnson and Mitchell Starc are white ball maestros, James Faulkner has made himself indispensable at eight, and Xavier Doherty is the sole specialist spinner.
I’ve often wondered, though, why are people concerned by the number of left armers are in an attack? Have you ever heard someone say, ‘They shouldn’t pick player x as they already have a right-arm quick, they don’t need two’?
I haven’t. Yet it is common to hear variations of this in regards to the selection of left-arm pacemen.
A News Limited article published last week suggested the likely reason in-form Western Australia fast bowler Jason Behrendorff missed Australia’s World Cup squad was because he is a left armer.
“There’s no way any of Johnson, Faulkner or Starc were going to be left out of the squad, and to select a fourth left-arm paceman in a group of just 15 players would have been a risk Australia simply couldn’t afford to take,” the article stated.
So because Australia’s three left-arm quicks have been so successful they cannot “risk” picking a fourth? Had Australia selected four off-spinners to play in unfavourable home conditions that would have represented a risk.
Selecting four in-form quicks who happen to bowl with the same arm surely would not.
When was the last time that England fielded anything but an all right-arm pace attack? Have they been taking a risk by relying on them solely and not fielding any left armers?
Are right-arm pacemen deemed to be inherently more effective than their left-arm counterparts? If anything I would argue that left-arm bowlers, by their comparative scarcity, are of greater value.
The average international batsman has spent a far greater number of hours, whether in game situations or practice, facing right-arm quicks. Left armers are less familiar to them and it would be logical to conclude that is an advantage for the bowler.
Behrendorff shouldn’t be overlooked because Starc, Johnson and Faulkner are already in Australia’s squad. The same way that England shouldn’t pick a token left-arm paceman just to give them variety in their right-arm dominated attack. Select the best bowlers, regardless.
The lanky Western Australia paceman had strong claims for a World Cup spot. Behrendorff backed up a terrific 2013-14 summer by excelling in the domestic One Day Cup, bowling with consistency and potency in the Sheffield Shield and displaying his versatility in the Big Bash League.
The final fast bowling positions in Australia’s squad went to right armers Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood. Neither was undeserving of their spot. Hazlewood has been a revelation at international level this summer while Cummins’ startling pace and clever variations make him a beguiling limited overs package.
Behrendorff wasn’t stiffed, there is just extraordinary depth in Australia’s pace stocks at present.
It’s hard to imagine the selectors didn’t pick him because he was a left armer. But plenty of cricket followers would overlook him for that reason. I cannot understand why.