With four specialist batsmen, three all-rounders (plus keeper/batsman Brad Haddin) and no spinner, Australia’s unorthodox best XI at the World Cup could backfire.
The line-up has been customised for this tournament. Small grounds and rules encouraging run scoring have made it a World Cup for batsmen. Around one in three innings so far has brought over 300 runs.
With genuine hitters down to 10, this Aussie team is capable of some massive scores, particularly when playing weaker teams.
Against England the Aussies were three wickets down in the eleventh over before amassing 342. Last night’s match versus Afghanistan saw Australia score 417.
However the lack of specialist batsmen hurt against the Kiwis, when Australia’s specialist batsmen failed and the all-rounders weren’t able to save the innings. Adding more batsmen might not necessarily have helped, but George Bailey is a better option than Glenn Maxwell or Mitch Marsh in that scenario.
Bringing Bailey in leaves Australia with five batsmen, a keeper/batsmen, two all-rounders, and three bowlers.
Bailey had been out of form for a while but played well against England. His ODI record throughout his career has been brilliant and the Tasmanian can both build and finish an innings. He’s certainly a better option than Maxwell at five.
Even though Maxwell’s bowling average is slightly worse than Michael Clarke’s he needs to stay to give Australia a spin option. This is especially true considering Clarke rarely bowls.
That leaves Marsh to be dropped for Bailey. Pushing the West Australian out of the team would be harsh after he snared five wickets against England, but he’s surplus to requirements. A team with Mitch Johnson, Mitch Starc and Pat Cummins doesn’t need more wicket takers.
As easy as it is to be seduced by dominant batting performances against England and Afghanistan, showing proper batsmanship against the attacks of New Zealand and South Africa is what will deliver Australia a World Cup.
Bailey’s inclusion will seriously boost Australia’s chances of winning the tournament.
13th Man
Guest
Good sides at the moment are only really NZ, SA and SL. So no they haven't proven themselves yet.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Nice non-specific qualifier in brackets there, and I'd dispute that they haven't demonstrated they can perform under pressure against "good" sides.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
It would seem to make more sense to have Marsh in before Maxwell.
Mahee Hossain
Guest
We need another batsman to consolidate in case of an early collapse, and Maxwell and Marsh haven't yet proven if they can perform under pressure (against good sides).
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Bailey's form hasn't been all that stunning of late either.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I also prefer Marsh higher up the order, he has a sound technique and seems a decent temprament too. Maxi really should be kept as low as possible and just sent out to do exactly what he did last night. If that means moving up to 4 cause we didn't lose any wickets, or dropping down to 8 cause we needy steadier heads to go in so be it...
Dinny Navaratnam
Roar Guru
I like your point. Selectors definitely take a shine to some players without much evidence and sometimes it works (MIchael Clarke, David Warner) and sometimes it doesn't (Shane Watson in Tests, Shaun Marsh). Glenn Maxwell is another who gets a great run because of his potential. Pretty unfair on guys who consistently perform at state level.
Dinny Navaratnam
Roar Guru
Watson has averaged 73 with the ball over the last couple of years so I don't think there's any point of bringing him in for his bowling. His record has him as one of Australia's best every one-day cricketers but he's been out of form for too long to justify his selection. It's great to have a lot of bowling options but if that comes at the expense of a decent batting line-up it's not worth it. If Maxwell is batting at five against a team who can put the ball in the right spot and move it around a bit Australia could be in a bit of trouble.
13th Man
Guest
Yeah thats right. Clarke bowled more overs than Marsh last night, perhaps they wanted to see if Clarke was able to bowl and then they could bring back Bailey. With Clarke bowling you can probably get through overs from both him and Maxi. I think you can get away with bringing Bailey back for Marsh.
13th Man
Guest
Voges first choice for sure. Also can bowl handy overs. would be perfect at 5 right now. Hope for an injury!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
One thing Clarke's bowling last night does is definitely guarantee that Doherty won't be getting a game at this World Cup.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Unless Australia lost against Sri Lanka, they won't have to play another game in NZ. So I don't see that as a problem. With a similar lineup to this Australia have had a few matches this season already where after losing a few early wickets the middle order of "allrounders" have done a very good job of still building an impressively defendable total. I don't think there is a lot to worry about with the batting lineup. I'd be more worried about going into a match short of bowlers because you've replaced Marsh with Bailey. Clarke bowling pretty well last night, even accepting the fact it was against Afghanistan, does make a bit of a difference though. If he can bowl reasonably tightly and they can get through 10 overs between himself and Maxwell reasonably cheaply then they could afford Bailey for Marsh.
dan ced
Guest
Perhaps. I know if someone was injured they'd grab S.Marsh straight away.. but he is being overshadowed in his own team by both Klinger and Voges. I get shitty when the selectors just point blank ignore CURRENT batting form and install one of their mates that had 1 good innings multiple years ago. Ferg I'd be OK with because he has been hard done by since his ODI injury. Cooper also. Cam White I'm not so sure. I think a lot of people would be plumbing for Chris Lynn too but I want him to string together similar form to your Voges/Klinger/Ferguson types to get ahead of them in queue.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
So what your saying is Australia bats deep, is capable of posting big scores (and that Bailey may not have made a difference when we didn't), but bring him in anyway to bolster the batting line-up?
Dog's Breakfast
Guest
Agree Bailey should be in there now that Clarke is bowling. Bailey showed what a steadying influence he is in the England game. I think I read somewhere he averages 65 when coming in at 3 for less than 70. Marsh and Maxwell looked very shaky when put under pressure by NZ. We'll be coming up against bowling attacks and knockout situations where you'll want a solid, experienced middle order. Got enough power hitting with Haddin (outshone Marsh when he came in yesterday), Faulkner and Maxwell... and Johnson if it comes to that.
jameswm
Guest
I actually think for balance, you can't bring Bailey in for Marsh. It leaves you with only 5 bowlers. The safer option is to have 6. In any case - is Bailey really that much a better batsman than Marsh? By enough to make up for his lack of bowling and inferior fielding? I will agree though that by bowling Clarke for 5 overs, it gives them the option to share the final 10 between Clarke and Maxwell.
jameswm
Guest
Maxwell at 5 is an issue if we lose early wickets, in which case Marsh is a better option at 5.
Vas Venkatramani
Roar Guru
Dan, they can't pick anyone outside of the squad now unless there is an injury. Besides, the likes of Shaun Marsh, Cam White and possibly Callum Ferguson would all be ahead of Max Klinger.
Brian
Guest
Agreed and I think this is why Clarke was bowling last night. If Australia is to lose another game it will be because of the batting, be it SA/NZ paceman or India/SL spinners. Personally I would prefer Watson at 3 with Clarke at 5 so you've got Clarke, Watson & Smith all reserves for the 10 overs from Maxwell, and you have Clarke at No 5. Failing that Bailey at 5.
dan ced
Guest
Bring Klinger in not Bailey. Great shield from, great BBL form, can accumulate/graft or go ballistic if needed (see his BBL century this season). Captaining experience too.