Faulkner deserves a proper crack at Test cricket

By Ronan O'Connell / Expert

Australia’s selectors missed an opportunity to get James Faulkner back in the Test setup by instead selecting the fading Peter Siddle in last week’s 17-man Test squad.

Promising quicks like James Pattinson, Jackson Bird, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Jason Behrendorff and Chadd Sayers are all either injured or struggled to find form this summer.

This created the perfect juncture to give Faulkner his first chance to prove himself as a specialist Test bowler. To this point the selectors have viewed him only as an all-rounder.

This was the role he filled in his one Test, against England in the fifth match of the last Ashes tour, when he made 45 runs and had match figures of 6-98.

Instead of giving Faulkner the opportunity to compete for a deserved second crack at Tests, the selectors picked Siddle ahead of him in the latest Test squad.

The courageous Victorian paceman has been a wonderful servant for Australia but appears finished as a Test player. Since his pace dropped by 10kmh about two years ago he has lost his penetration and his Test returns have been paltry.

Siddle’s last 12 Tests have seen him return 24 wickets at the inflated average of 45. The most instructive statistic is his awful strike rate of 96 during this period.

You see, Siddle is still a very accurate bowler. He offers the batsmen few loose deliveries upon which to seize. But he has never done much with the ball, either through the air or off the seam.

For years, Siddle compensated for this lack of movement with his precision and pace, which was consistently above 140kmh and sometimes up to 150kmh.

Now, however, he has been reduced to a medium pacer. Siddle’s average speed across his last Test against India in Adelaide was 132kmh. He took 2-109 for the match as the Indian batsmen looked completely at ease against his frugal but gentle offerings.

When you’re bowling in the low-to-mid 140kmh range you don’t need many tricks to be successful in Tests, as long as you’re accurate. It’s an entirely different story for bowlers in the 130-135kmh zone, where Siddle now lingers.

At that easy pace, you won’t trouble good Test batsmen unless you can hoop the ball through the air and/or gain disconcerting bounce off the pitch. Siddle does neither.

Hence, over his past 12 Tests, on average he has had to toil for 16 overs per wicket. To put that strike rate in perspective, part-time spinners Michael Clarke and Steve Smith each have had to bowl just 13 overs per wicket in their Test careers.

Siddle appears unlikely to be in the starting XI for Australia’s next Test, in the West Indies, even with spearhead Ryan Harris sitting out that series. Attack leader Mitchell Johnson and World Cup heroes Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood look certain to be favoured ahead of him.

There is also a strong chance leg spinner Fawad Ahmed will debut in tandem with incumbent tweaker Nathan Lyon. Siddle is being taken on these tours as insurance. He is a specialist first change bowler who rarely goes for runs.

Faulkner could have filled this role just as well, while also offering far more in addition. The left armer is not quick either – he topped out at 140kmh on Test debut while operating consistently in the 134kmh-138kmh zone.

He has advantages, though, in the form of his left-arm angle, and his clever variations in pace, which have brought him success not only in limited overs cricket but in first-class matches too.

Then, of course, there’s the fact that Faulkner at 24-years-old has massive potential, whereas Siddle’s best years clearly are behind him.

Given Australia have six players in their favoured Test XI in the twilight of their careers – Brad Haddin, Chris Rogers, Ryan Harris, Mitchell Johnson, Michael Clarke and Shane Watson – surely investing in youth was the prudent choice.

That’s without even considering Faulkner’s enormous gifts with the blade. His lack of a first class century is an anomaly. Faulkner is far too good a batsman for that barrier not to be broken soon, and when it is it would not surprise me to see the floodgates open.

He already has one incredible century to his name in ODIs, amid a brilliant record of 814 runs at 43 for Australia.

Faulkner’s first-class average of 32 is underwhelming but is hindered by the fact he debuted so young, aged just 18 years old, and was not given many batting opportunities for Tasmania in his first few seasons.

Over the past three Shield seasons, despite constant interruptions because of international duties, Faulkner has made 757 runs at 37. His batting is on an upward curve. Moreover, Faulkner is a ferocious competitor and clearly a player who rises to the challenge of international cricket.

It would not surprise were he to be able to raise that average from 37 up to 40 in Test cricket. Faulkner was by no means a dominant 50-over player at domestic level yet look at the manner in which he’s flourished for Australia.

For Tasmania, he’s made just 572 runs at 30 in 50-over matches. Given a chance on the world stage he’s been a destructive batsman, averaging 43.

It has been argued that the belligerent style that has brought him this ODI success would not translate to Tests. But Faulkner the first-class batsman is almost unrecognisable. He is a thoughtful, patient player prepared to graft for his runs, as underlined by his strike rate of 52 in first class cricket.

His finest match as a batsman further illustrates this point. Tasmania defeated Queensland in the Shield final of the 2012-13 season, during which Faulkner was the best player in the competition taking 39 wickets at 20 to go with 444 runs at 35.

With Tasmania needing only a draw to win, they set about trying to tame a strong Queensland attack led by Ryan Harris. Faulkner twice had to haul his side out of a hole. In the first innings they were 7-269 and in the second dig slumped to 6-56.

The all-rounder made 135 runs for the match. Most significantly, he spent a mammoth 464 minutes at the crease, betraying the perception of him as a cavalier batsman.

Faulkner is a player who steps up. Faulkner is a man for the big games. Faulkner is made for Test cricket. Hopefully his wondrous achievements in limited overs cricket won’t distract the selectors from these facts.

The Crowd Says:

2015-04-07T11:07:41+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


He will tour England...as the replacement for Harris who can't possibly come up.

2015-04-07T11:04:28+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


What do you imagine would convince you? It is such a try-hard statement...the old pretend expert, "I am not convinced..." A stock bowler who can swing the ball , cut the ball, change pace, keep it tight and bowl over after over while the quicks refresh. We are screaming for such a bowler.

2015-04-07T03:50:31+00:00

deccas

Guest


both of those guys were far more accurate, did more with the ball, and were smarter bowlers than Siddle is. Siddle's pace is one of his biggest weapons, and we have seen his performances dip as his pace has started to go.

2015-04-07T00:58:06+00:00

Jack Smith

Roar Guru


Has a little bit more pace than Watson so I doubt it.

2015-04-06T23:07:29+00:00

Train Without A Station

Roar Guru


Ronan, I did an article not long ago noting that statistically, Faulkner was one of Australia's best FC bowlers. Will he be disregarded as a specialist bowler due to his lack of pace though?

2015-04-06T22:54:11+00:00

Harvey Wilson

Roar Rookie


Siddle's speed isn't necessarily a problem. McGrath only lingered around 130-135 and he made a success of things. Shaun Pollock was another. You don't need to be express to be a success.

2015-04-06T22:16:54+00:00

DingoGray

Roar Guru


I can't see Faulkner being picked solely as Front Line Bowler.... He's competing with Marsh & Watson for the all rounder spot. The only difference being he would bat behind the wicket keeper. I actually think in England it would be worthwhile to play him instead of Mitchell Marsh. But currently with Haddin in the Test side I think that highly unlikely.

2015-04-06T16:15:46+00:00

Vish

Guest


I believe in specialists and different teams for coloured and white clothing. Faulkner s a clean striker and he can handle a tough run chase well. Calm head and knows which ball to slog. The first time i saw him slog at the wrong ball was against India. He jus went too hard. His variety and clever bowling makes him lethal for coloured clothin. Tests would need a steady bowler like Mitch Marsh who can conventional swing and reverse and bowl in the corridor. nip the ball sharp. cut swing like. And Steve Smith at 3 in tests would be a wrong move. He would do a good job at 4. We need a Jordan Silk like solid 3. Would Voges do the job. Warner Rogers Voges Smith Clarke Marsh Haddin Johnson Hazelwood Ahmed Lyon

2015-04-06T10:10:45+00:00

Alex L

Roar Rookie


I would've liked to see Faulkner in ahead of Mitch Marsh or Shane Watson, I'd be genuinely interested to see what he could do with that back of the hand spinning slower ball on spinning tracks.

2015-04-06T10:06:46+00:00

Warwick Todd

Guest


More like banana smoothies than beer.

2015-04-06T07:10:13+00:00

Jack Smith

Roar Guru


Faulkner to me looks like he could be the next Steve Smith - although in reverse. he could come in as a batsmen but end up finding his form with the ball and always be handy for a few runs. Steve Smith is the same with the ball but wickets obviously.

2015-04-06T06:39:19+00:00

BurgyGreen

Guest


That looks like a very strong side to me. Maxwell, in my opinion, is one of our best future middle-order prospects. That side doesn't require his bowling anyway. All it needs is for Nevill to bat as well as his FC stats suggest.

2015-04-06T01:45:17+00:00

pjm

Roar Rookie


Let me know who was the last specialist batsman to play at 6 without Watson wasting a space up the order.

2015-04-06T00:44:22+00:00

Ann

Guest


Mark Waugh is a fantastic selector, we have won the World Cup and bringing back Watson at 6 for the WC was a master Stoke

2015-04-06T00:10:55+00:00

Dom

Guest


In an ODI, sure. Faulkner can slog fours as well as anybody. Not sure what you're basing your trust in his red ball batting ability on though. I still rate Watson a better test batsman than Faulkner, probably (although we haven't seen much of Faulkner batting in Test-mode, to be fair) and a better bowler than Marsh. Watto's just scraping into the top 6 now, so I'd rate Faulkner more of a number 8 option with the bat (albeit a terrific one).

2015-04-06T00:05:29+00:00

Dom

Guest


I get that instinct, because three lefties is unusual, but it makes zero sense on second thought. If an all-right-handed bowling attack is ok, why not three lefties? Being left-handed hasn't hurt Johnson or Starc's wicket-taking ability much (I'd say it's helped if anything). I'm not convinced Faulkner's a front-line Test bowler yet, but his left-handedness should be a non-issue.

2015-04-06T00:01:57+00:00

Dom

Guest


Remember the days when we judged bowlers by their bowling? Like when we had McGrath and Gillespie as an opening pair, back when Australia dominated world cricket?

2015-04-05T22:24:43+00:00

Freighter

Guest


Hi Ronan- you make some very good points. however, I feel like you might be selectively using stats to help you out here (I may be wrong). My point is that a player should have a strong lead in of recent Sheffield Shield performances to warrant selection in the test side. You quote Faulkner's domestic bowling average of 24, but in the same paragraph argue that his recent batting form should be considered as its improving so much (in article). Under that argument, then what are his recent bowling figures? I have no access to stats here, so I could be a lamb to the slaughter, however, to me his bowling in the longer form of the game has dropped off? Is that correct?- am happy to be proved wrong. I feel like the process of selection is so sparatic at the moment- that was my point moreso than any disagreement that Faulkner shouldn't have been selected as I thought his bowling had dropped off.... In saying that Starc would prob be the first picked in a test side due to his WC- so go figure!

2015-04-05T12:31:58+00:00

Mark

Guest


Good point. Perhaps they would have needed to in the early 2000's when Shield players averaging above 50 weren't getting a baggy green but it's a different story now.

2015-04-05T12:27:25+00:00

Nudge

Guest


pjm "6 is not a specialist batsmen's position" great stuff mate, but this forum on the roar is for people who know a bit about cricket, do some study over the next year and we would love you to join us in conversation. Until then mate please hit the books.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar