Unless Mitchell Starc produces a startling effort in the second Test in Jamaica this week, he faces being dropped again when Ryan Harris returns to the Australian side for the Ashes.
In fact, even if Starc scythes through the West Indian batting line-up it may not be sufficient to earn him a spot in the XI at Cardiff in a month’s time.
Test cricket has not been kind to the lanky left-arm quick. His career has spanned only 16 matches yet the number of times he has been axed is in double figures.
His mishandling reached a cruel peak when he was ‘rotated’ out of the side for the 2012 Boxing Day Test against Sri Lanka, despite having been a match-winner with five second-innings scalps the previous match.
Were Starc to be left out for the first Ashes Test it would be unfortunate but not unjust, like some of his previous handling by the selectors.
Australia are in the luxurious situation of having a surplus of quality pacemen. Before his latest injury layoff, Harris had proven himself the second best Test bowler on the globe, behind only all-time great South African Dale Steyn.
The 35-year-old owns an extraordinary Test record against England, with 57 wickets at an average of 21. Crucially, Harris has a mental hold over in-form English skipper Alastair Cook, with whom he toyed over the past two Ashes. Someone must make way for his return.
Australia’s pacemen made merry against an inept West Indian batting line-up during the nine-wicket demolition job in the first Test last week. Mitchell Johnson (5-72 from 29 overs), Josh Hazlewood (5-50 from 31 overs) and Starc (6-76 from 33 overs) formed a cohesive unit on the dry surface at Windsor Park.
Johnson showed some early rust before finding strong rhythm and exhibiting clever variations.
Hazlewood was the standout, almost digging a crater on a good length just outside off stump such was the relentless way he hit the perfect spot.
Starc, meanwhile, was loose to begin with, just like his left-arm colleague. But he too improved over the course of the match and showcased an impressive degree of accuracy, something which too often has been absent from his bowling with the red ball.
No one doubts his ability to take wickets, but it is consistency which has been lacking. Of course, it is difficult to locate that when you are bounced like a basketball in and out of the side.
Clearly, Starc would benefit enormously from a length run in the side. He has such extravagant gifts that they must be harnessed.
As a 6’6 left armer capable of swinging the ball late at 150kmh, he is the rarest of bowlers. It is hard to imagine that he will not one day take the Test game in his palm and squeeze from it a wealth of wickets.
But, for the moment, he is not in Australia’s best attack for the Ashes. The way Harris and Johnson monstered the English batsmen 18 months ago guarantees them selection.
Hazlewood, meanwhile, has been a revelation since debuting last Australian summer, with 17 wickets at 23 from four Tests. In the manner of legends like Glenn McGrath, Shaun Pollock and Curtly Ambrose, Hazlewood hits the same testing area of the pitch ad nauseam until the batsmen falter.
Hazlewood’s performance at Roseau was remarkable. It was the quality of bowling that we have grown accustomed to witnessing regularly from Steyn and Harris or, at their peak, from the likes of Vernon Philander and James Anderson.
Australia’s resounding success in the last Ashes derived as much from their attack’s ability to build pressure as to blast out the Poms. Johnson, in particular, cashed in on the pressure created by Harris and spinner Nathan Lyon.
It is no surprise that Johnson’s record over recent years has been far worse when Harris has been out of the side.
Similar to Harris, Hazlewood builds the kind of pressure upon which his bowling cohorts can seize. He, Harris and Lyon will ensure that the English batting line-up will find it very difficult to score freely in the Ashes. That, in turn, will make the mercurial Johnson even more dangerous.
Starc just doesn’t fit into this picture. But he may be able to paint himself into it before long.
Harris turns 36 years old in a few months, has a famously fragile body, and recently became a father. It seems unlikely he will play Tests beyond another 12 months or so.
Even Johnson, who is 34 years old this year, may not have a lot of time left in the game. History shows few bowlers who were able to maintain their peak speed into their mid-30s. Without his pace, Johnson is a significantly diminished bowler, as we’ve seen in the past. Once he drops 5kmh, and that can’t be far away, it will probably end his Test career.
There will be ample opportunities for young pacemen to stake their claims in the longest form of the game over the next two years.
Starc will among the pack, jostling for a permanent position in the Test XI. In the shorter term he will have chances to make sure that he is the lead candidate in that group by exploiting his limited opportunities.
He looks certain to play the second Test against the West Indies starting on Thursday and is likely to play in the Ashes too. Harris’ age and fragility means he may be managed through the Ashes, with a one-match rest at some point very possible.
Australia will also be mindful of balancing the workload of Hazlewood, whose only weakness exposed at Test level so far has been his stamina. It would not surprise to see both Harris and Hazlewood rested from one match apiece during the Ashes.
Starc will fill any such breach. For now he will have to make do with such cameos.
Bakkies
Guest
Broad's actually been England's best bowler in the last two Ashes Series by some margin. He can run through sides when he is in the mood
Bakkies
Guest
Ballance will get an awful going over. Boult and Southee had him trapped. Henry bowled well but Clarke has better options to put the choke on. NZ have been getting Buttler out nicking off at wide ones
Bakkies
Guest
I agree with the great man. Watched Harris' dismissals from the last series and he had Bell in all sorts.
schtumpy
Guest
What's Watson been averaging over the same period?
b
Guest
Harris and Hazelwood do have similarities, they are both miserly bowlers who concentrate on or just outside off stump. Johnson and Starc are very different bowlers. Starc is a genuine swing bowler with huge, hopping inswinging yorkers, while Johnson relies on the short ball and cutting the ball out to the slips. Harris and Hazelwood are much more similar than Johnson and Starc.
b
Guest
As individuals the bowlers are inconsistent, as a unit they have proven themselves to be very consistent. It's not about one bowler, but five of them working together, the bowlers run scoring is why we have done so well lately. And lets not forget, Watson the all rounder has been inconsistent, actually he has been very consistent, a consistent failure. And even if the bowlers have the odd failure with the bat, the extra specialist bowler is worth at least 30 runs per innings, probably more, compared to the bowling efforts of Watson or Marsh. Even Faulkners efforts with the bat and ball are probably a step down from selecting Starc when you factor in all the variables.
Matth
Guest
I'm too old to take on this change without fear, but it's pretty hard to argue against it. My only worry is that the batting of the bowlers is inconsistent, so you could be setting us up for one or two spectacular collapses when they don't aim up. I would also be more comfortable if one of the four paceman was Faulkner, because of his batting quality, or the keeper was in any sort of batting from, or was Nevill or Wade. But it's a tempting though. Harris and Starc, followed by Hazlewood and Johnson...lets just sack another couple of batsman and have Pattinson and Cummins come in third change! They can both bat too.
b
Guest
People keep saying our batting will be vulnerable with an extra bowler instead of an all rounder, but that completely ignores the recent performances of both the bowlers and the all rounder. Watson has been batting poorly, and the tail has been consistently performing.
b
Guest
You are wrong. Haddin is in the side for his keeping, no matter where he bats. The issue is not where Haddin bats, but whether any all rounder is a better selection than an extra specialist bowler. The tail, from Haddin down, has proven they can handle the all rounders batting role, better than Watson can handle it. And ultimately test cricket is not about runs. No matter how many runs you score, you can't win unless you take 20 wickets, and the better you are at taking wickets, the less runs you have to score anyway. Looking at runs and wickets, only a top quality all rounder, in form, could be selected ahead of Starc. The only reason to consider Watson or Marsh is sticking to a formula, or being unable to comprehend the concept of of 6 players combining into an all rounder.
b
Guest
Starc can perform with the red ball, too many people judge him on one off performances. Dropping the all rounder formula for a quality bowler is the option Australian selectors should have taken some time ago.
b
Guest
This article suffers from the same formulated, unimaginative, boneheadedness of the Australian selectors. In the first test in the WI Starc showed he can reproduce the pace and swing of one day cricket in test matches, and with consistent test selection he will only get better, the talent is clear to see. Starc is most certainly in Australia's best attack for the ashes, and it would be unjust to leave him out based on some archaic formula for test squads. Even though we have no McGrath, no number 11, or even number 10 batsman, the selectors and many fans still have an all rounder obsession. Our tail is fulfilling the batting requirements of an all rounder, better than Watson in recent times. Starc is obviously a much better bowling option than Watson, Marsh or any other all rounder. The better bowling of a specialist bowler, and the batting performance of the tail, make the selection of an all rounder unnecessary, and out of date. Other than sticking to the old formula, how could anyone justify selecting Watson or Marsh, ahead of Starc?
Lily
Guest
This all selection stuff has been so hard on him. Can they please give him at least 4 test matches in a row and then judge his line, length, consistency and stamina?! He's been dropped 11 times from the team and has never played 2 matches in a row since after his debut (against NZ) - that would crush anyone's confidence. I feel so bad for him.
JimmyB
Guest
Haha you're right Deccas, Ronan is or should be replying to me, but he doesn't interact with me, therefore we get the slightly weird situation where he addresses you directly whilst responding to my post. Ronan is a master at cherry picking stats that suit his particular bias and disregarding others when they don't. Not that I wish to argue about it, but if you read through your posts further up, you definitely said that Australia have a far superior top five to England. Also if you're going to compare batsmen it's surely better to compare like for like. I did say that I was using some artistic licence in picking Rashid, however I think he's potentially the most dangerous spinner on either side. He may be England's secret(ish) weapon come the Ashes. Lyon is a decent spinner and he certainly does a useful job for Australia, but he's not in the top class bracket yet. I'd definitely take Buttler over Haddin personally, although Haddin's keeping has been very good for a while now, his batting has dropped off a cliff.
deccas
Guest
I think you're replying to JimmyB and not me there Ronan, though you've done a great job speaking my thoughts. Anderson has the runs on the board to be considered a better bowler than Hazlewood, but he isn't the bowler he was 4 years ago, and Hazlewood is only going to get better. For the sake of the argument Anderson might be a better bowler right now, but he won't be in 1 year. But it comes down to team roles, Hazlewood is a better 3rd seemer than Anderson. Anderson is deadly when the ball is swinging but not so much when it isn't. Hazlewood's height and accuracy lend themselves to the role better than Anderson's skill set. Hazlewood has also shown that he can swing and reverse swing the ball very well, though he hasn't shown the mastery, nor the ability to get in in as varied conditions as Anderson yet. JimmyB, I don't think I did say that Aus's batting is far superior. I don't think it is, I think the teams are pretty close there. I said I think we edge you, which is true. Cook and Clarke probably even out, Smith and Root even out. Rogers would be a tad above Lyth but not by heaps, Warner has plenty on Bell. England bat a lot deeper but I think that comes at the expense of your bowling attack which is gonna struggle to take 20 wickets. Cook and Root would both definitely make the aussie side, and Stokes probably would (his bowling is good but not tight enough would be the only black mark). As a batsmen he would make it in over Marsh and Watson and we'll give it to Stokes because its a batting discussion. That gives the poms 3 of the top 6, which is even. Buttler wouldnt make it in over Haddin because his keeping just isn't up to it yet. There is a reason we aren't selecting Wade. Buttler should be persisted with though, his keeping is improving and his batting will as well, he is on the trajectory to be the best keeper batsmen in the world in a few years. You're very generous to give Rashid the bowling spot over lyon. I've never seen Rashid so I can't really comment. Lyon is a bloody decent off spinner though and will probably finish up with a record comparable to Swann's.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Deccas I don't think anyone actually believes that Anderson is the second best bowler in Test cricket that's just what the rankings say. The reason I don't rate Anderson as highly as many is that he's made a habit over the past 3-4 years of excelling against the sides which are poor players of pace (SL, Windies, India) but struggling when he has a real challenge of bowling to batsmen brought up against quick bowling. Since the start of 2012, he has averaged 35 in his 20 Tests against Australia, SA and NZ. Are those the figures of the number 2 bowler in the world? Of course not. Compare Anderson's figures against the Western nations since the start of 2012 with those of Johnson and Harris: Johnson - 65 wickets at 16 Harris - 80 wickets at 22 Anderson - average of 35 That's why I said he wouldn't be an "automatic" inclusion in a full-strength Australian XI. When I am picking such a team I envisage them playing against strong opposition like SA, not against the likes of SL or the Windies. Then you have to consider what role the 3rd quick would play in the side. Would Anderson take the new ball ahead of either of Harris and Johnson? Obviously not. So you are judging him as a first change bowler, when he wouldn't have the luxury of starting his spells with a brand new swinging ball. How would Andeson fare starting his spells with a somewhat weathered ball against strong opposition accustomed to playing quick bowling? Not well, history would suggest. So, viewed in this light, Anderson would not be an "automatic" selection in a full strength Australian XI. There would be serious concerns about his struggles when facing good players of pace and his ability to have an impact as a first change bowler.
JimmyB
Guest
Haha, well I didn't expect you to agree with me. Hazlewood has a bright future no doubt, but he's played a handful of test matches. Anderson has done it over many years, regardless of whether you like him or not, which Aussies generally don't, he's a top quality bowler, hence his ranking.
GTW
Guest
No side in 2015 could leave Starc out. Have you seen some of the balls he's bowling in the West Indies? From his bowling position a straight ball would go to second slip, yet the hoop he gets has the ball bouncing on middle and hitting middle, it's a sight to see. With the exception of Ryan Harris, he's by far the classiest bowler we have. Johnston is a scary weapon, but only when he's in rhythm.
13th Man
Guest
JimmyB, i disagree. Anderson would not get picked in front of Johnson, Harris and Hazelwood. And if i was picking a composite team it would be Warner Cook Smith Root Clarke Voges Butler Johnson Harris Hazelwood Lyon So thats 8 Aussies and 3 poms.
JimmyB
Guest
Well Anderson is the number 2 ranked test bowler in the world behind Steyn, so take your pick frankly. Deccas, you're now saying that the batting is close to even, where further up you said that Australia's top five was far superior to England's. I'd agree that they're fairly equal. If I was picking a composite team it would look something like this: Warner Cook Smith Clarke (c) (Bell misses out due to Clarke being skipper, both are class players struggling for form at the moment.) Root Stokes Buttler Rashid (artistic licence on my behalf, but I think he is potentially the most dangerous spinner on either side and a very good lower order batsman.) Johnson/Starc Harris Anderson Despite the fact that I've got 6 Englishmen and only 5 Aussies in that team, I do fully accept that Australia are a superior team to England, but I think that team offers balance and would be effective in all conditions.
deccas
Guest
Batting is pretty close to even. Anderson might make it in as third seemer, but ... well it would be a near run thing with him and Hazlewood, or a fit Pattinson Starc.