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.
JGK
Roar Guru
I think you can have too many lefties if the opponent has several RH batsmen. Generally, you prefer your bowlers bowling to the same hand batsmen if for nothing more than LBW is more likely. I'd love to get some detailed stats of bowlers and the handedness of their victims (and the runs they score and even the extras conceded against different batsmen) to get a more scientific analysis of this.
Don Freo
Guest
That Sandhu wasn't the best in Matador. NCN was...and Paris...and Behrendorff...
matth
Guest
Yes but NCN is injured. He was picked for ODI's ahead of Sandhu previously, so what's your point?
Alex L
Roar Rookie
This is true but as you would also be aware the switch was made because the white ball as it's currently produced degrades very quickly -- it's not at all uncommon to see them going reverse late in the game, but the early hardness of the ball also drops off pretty fast.
anchorman
Guest
Reminds me of the reason the Aussie selectors left Justin Langer out of the side to tour England for the Ashes way back. Too many left handers in the batting line up if he is selected. What a load of crud,if they are good enough then pick them.
Don Freo
Guest
Richardson is way off the standard required.
Don Freo
Guest
Sandhu took 15 in 9 games? NCN 14 in 6 games. NCN economy and average the best in Matador.
Gobbler
Guest
Alex they use a ball from each end now meaning in the 25th over the ball will only be 12 overs old.
Gav
Guest
Good article Ronan Tend to agree, he has missed out on the WC squad due to the limited no's and quality avail. Having said that Behredorff is a top line bowler in my mind and he must be bought into the fold (Aust international team), he is too good to leave on the sidelines. I rate him as highly as Starc, granted his not as quick, but his control is better both when getting swing and without. I'd love to see him in English conditions with the Duke in his hand! I certainly hope the selectors aren't limiting our teams based on the notion of balance / lefties to righties etc. It's terrible to imagine him missing out because of that. They must select the best bowlers first, and the balance works out the way it works out. Hayden and Langer were probably the best opening batting combination we've had in recent times.....nobody was kicking either one of them out just because it's nice to have a leftie and a righty open as it causes the opposition bowlers to re adjust lines.
ES
Guest
They've played 17 ODIs together. Johnson averages 32 with Starc, 25.7 without. Starc averages 17.9 with Johnson, 20.1 without. As a few people have suggested, I think its more roles than handedness, although a bit of variety is probably preferable. My ideal bowling attacks at the moment would be Starc, Johnson, Dorff, Faulkner and Boyce/Ahmed in ODIs with Bird or Patto coming in for Johnson once they've got some form together. In tests, Harris, Johnson, Dorff/Bird and Lyon, with one of Marsh/Watto as the all-rounder. If Faulkner can bump his average by 5 or 10 and Carters or similar replaces Haddin, then he may well leapfrog them to bat number 7 with a solid tail for test matches. In all cases, there's a list as long as my arm of unlucky pacemen. If we could find another 6 guys that could bat to some sort of standard (and we're getting closer to that point again), we could have a hell of an Aus vs Aus A series again.
Alex L
Roar Rookie
Ronan, the reason this is rarely discussed in reverse may be primarily down to demographics; with only about 10-20% of the worlds population being left handed it has been the case at times that there isn't a left handed quick good enough to be in the conversation -- when there has been they've generally been selected for Australia (the only exception to this I can recall is when Nathan Bracken was still quite green around the 2003 world cup) -- even Brendon Julian got a few games despite being utterly mediocre by world standards. I think the second part that's being missed is that Johnson and Starc aren't just two left arm quicks who are otherwise different; they're two left arm quicks who are inconsistent (devastating at their best, bleed runs at their worst), bowl around the same speed, bowl 4 over spells at most, and are ideally not bowling in the middle overs when the ball isn't swinging.
Bob Sims
Guest
About time somebody put this into proper perspective. Those chosen have been chosen because they are the best, and that's as it should be. What is much more important than left arm or right arm is the fact that the bowlers offer variety, and Starc, Johnson and Faulkner are all very different bowlers indeed. Leaving ODIs aside, at Test level, with either Watson or M. Marsh at six, and Faulkner, Johnson and Starc at eight, nine and ten,there is space to add a spinner or another quick, as match conditions dictate. That is an attack that would hold it's own in just about all conditions.
Ray Bullock
Guest
History doesn't read favourable with an all left arm attack. Johnson and Starc pick themselves. Doherty looks like the main spin option. Faulkner picks himself as an all rounder ,just happens to be a left arm bowler. So the main attack by hook or crook will be left arm. Cummins or Hazelwood are the only other options. Watson is there to do his bit . And Maxwell ,lets hope he chimes in when needed. So we are going against history but with Johnson and especially Starc heading our attack looking lethal , I do not see a weakness there. The rest is a raffle.
Chui
Guest
Of course you can claim it Chris. As long as Blues conspiracy tin foil is on straight
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
I'd like to see Cummins play at least a season just concentrating on domestic cricket before being considered for international honours.
Rixy
Guest
The Sydney test against Sri Lanka two summers ago had six leftys in the top seven, with Clarke the only exception: Warner Cowan Hughes Clarke Hussey Wade Johnson (when he became an all rounder for one game)
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Hazlewood's top pace is a good 6-7kmh quicker than Bird's. But Red Kev is right that, as far as Tests are concerned, Hazlewood's pace dropped significantly over the course of each day. He needs the match fitness.
Gobbler
Guest
Yep agree there. Not as bowler fit as say Bichel was years ago when he could bowl all day and still be quick at 5pm.
Gobbler
Guest
Not sure if the McGrath does prove that though. He is one of the best bowlers of all time so was obviously was a one-off. On form Bird isn't knocking the door down, hence why other guys are getting chances. I'm a massive fan of Bird, but from reading what the coach & selectors have said I doubt he'll be in our top 5 fast bowling options as they want faster, and better bats from their tailenders.
Red Kev
Roar Guru
Hazlewood bowls close to 140kph than 130kph for his first spell of the day, 135kph for his second and closer to 130kph for his third. He was practically trundling in at Watto pace in the final session of the tests. He needs to do some endurance training.