Four Australian bowlers have exceeded 150 kilometres per hour in the current ODI series against England – and Mitchell Johnson isn’t even playing.
James Pattinson yesterday gave Australian fans huge reason for optimism by bowling quicker than express pacemen Mitchell Starc or Pat Cummins in the third ODI.
In his first international game for 18 months, Pattinson pushed the speed gun up to a frightening 153kmh and operated consistently in the mid-140s.
Cummins hit 153kmh in the second game of the series, while Starc and Nathan Coulter-Nile both have reached 152kmh. Even all-rounder Mitchell Marsh has been very sharp at times, bowling at up to 147kmh.
Several of the English batsmen have looked rattled by the Australian pace, most notably opener Alex Hales.
Speed, of course, is not the only attribute a bowler need possess. But it has been a glaring difference between the sides, with English pundits bemoaning the team’s lack of a cutting edge in their attack.
The fact Pattinson took only 0-36 from six overs was far less relevant to Australian cricket than the manner in which he went about his work.
Persistent back injuries have derailed Pattinson’s career and forced him to remodel his action. It was unclear whether he could return to Australian duties possessing the same level of pace which had intimidated batsmen across the world.
As fellow emerging pacemen Starc and Josh Hazlewood cemented their positions in the Test and ODI teams, Pattinson has been trying either to avoid injury or recover from it.
It’s easy to forget that just two years ago, Pattinson was the standout young quick not just in Australia but in the world.
His fine Test record of 51 wickets at an average of 27 is all the more impressive when you consider that his 13 Tests have been played across five different regions – India, England, South Africa, the Caribbean and Australia.
In England in 2013, Pattinson entered the Ashes with injury concerns and promptly hurt his back once more.
When he returned against South Africa eight months later, he bowled with heart and skill to help Australia win the third Test and the series.
However, just like in the 2013 Ashes, he didn’t look the same bowler he had been at his peak.
Both times, Pattinson’s pace was down by 5 to 10kmh, leaving him as a solid but less incisive bowler.
In full flow, swinging the red ball late at 150kmh, the Victorian is a menace. Boasting more control than Starc, he had looked a certainty to spearhead Australia’s Test attack for a decade or so.
That still may be the case. His new, side-on action has been designed to protect his fitness, yet it has not reduced his pace.
Importantly, Australia’s attack lacked a leader in the recent Ashes. Mitchell Johnson has always appeared uncomfortable with such a role, while Starc, too, appears to favour operating in the slipstream of others.
Josh Hazlewood shapes as the rock of the Test attack with his typically faultless accuracy and reliability. Whether he can be a leader is still unclear.
Pattinson, though, was showing leadership qualities from the start of his Test career and seemed to relish being ‘the man’.
During Australia’s disastrous Test tour of India in 2013, he was the team’s spearhead and easily their most threatening bowler, performing with tenacity despite the deadest of dead pitches.
Pattinson was one of the few Australians who showed consistent fight during that 4-0 drubbing. Unlike most of his teammates, he actually enhanced his reputation.
With Coulter-Nile injured, Pattinson may well play the last two ODIs against England. It offers him a perfect opportunity to earn back his place in the Test line-up for the two matches against Bangladesh next month.
Reports suggest Johnson and Hazlewood will be rested from that series. In their absence, Pattinson may be the bowler Australia ask to lead their attack once more.
Nudge
Guest
I can't see how you see that they view him as almost the first choice seamer now Ronan. The reason 2 left armers and particularly Starc were kept in the team during the ashes was because the alternative options weren't appealing. As soon as Harris was injured the only other realistic option was Siddle, and his previous 7 or 8 tests he had been poor. I think you'd agree that if Hazlewood is fit for the first test at the Gabba he's a certainty. Johnson will obviously be the other one. Now when the selectors sit down to pick the 3rd one, and if Pattinson and Cummins were up and flying and sending them down at 150 plus I'd be very very surprised if they choose Starc over one of those two wouldn't you think?
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
I'd go Starc, Pattinson, Lyon and Agar. Mitch Marsh as 5th bowler.
Don Freo
Guest
I'm expecting Johnno to recognize that the future is in good hands and will retire soon. If Starc misses for a while, he can use it to develop control of length and direction. Bowlers like Paris and Jhye Richardson might go past him by the time he develops control. We are too well serviced for quicks for him not to get a handle on control. Control is an easy skill to master.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Nudge I have no reason to believe Johnson's presence in the side against NZ would mean Starc will miss out. The selectors are placing huge faith in Starc by resting Johnson and Hazlewood from the Tests against Bangladesh. I feel they may view him as almost the first choice Test seamer now. By resting Johnson and Hazlewood, I think the selectors are indicating that one of the other quicks - Siddle, Cummins, Pattinson, whoever - will have to be a real standout against Bangladesh to get in the XI for the first test of the summer against NZ.
Nudge
Guest
Yeah, can't see him flopping against the kiwis with 2 of the 3 tests at the Gabba and WACA. The thing is if Johnson is kept in the team, say till the end of 2016/17 summer it is most likely going to be at the expense of Starc. Considering Johnson is rarely injured it could well be 18 months until Starc gets another run of consecutive tests, and that to me is going to damage the progression of the Aussie team.
Don Freo
Guest
Totally objective and natural physics. It will also move later. Harder to bowl inswing, though.
VivGilchrist
Guest
That's subjective
VivGilchrist
Guest
But added nothing in the Tests.
VivGilchrist
Guest
No it wouldn't
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Nudge the fact Johnson has been rested from the Bangladesh series suggests to me he's been told he's a certainty for the first Test against NZ at the Gabba (or else there's little chance he'd sit out the Bang series at a time when his position in the team seemed shaky after a poor Ashes). The fact the second Test against NZ is at his favourite ground the WACA will also be factoring into the selectors minds. They know how dangerous NZ are but will be aware that their batsmen have never faced anything in Tests like Johnson bowling 150kmh bouncers on rock hard Aussie decks. If Johnson flops in those Tests against NZ it may spell the end for him but it seems he's still a first choice player with the selectors and some of the young quicks will have to bide their time.
Nudge
Guest
It's such a tough one Ronan. If you keep playing Johnson for another 12 to 18 months your really holding back one of Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins, or Pattinson. Say all 5 are fit this summer, and that's an if I know, and you played Johnson, Hazlewood, and Cummins, you really are holding back the development of Pattinson and Starc. In my opinion those 4 young quicks can all be absolute superstars, so it's time to play them now. I reckon the selectors should say to Johnno, we are keen for you to play the 3 tests against the kiwis but then we are moving on. It would be harsh but the right call. With so many recent retirements its time to blood all the talented young fellas and start seeing some real good reward in 18 to 24 months.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"Someone’s individual statistics are not an overall measure of how well they’ve bowled, and how much their bowling has helped the team take wickets." That's correct. But it's not like Siddle's poor stats weren't reflective of how he was bowling though. For the 18 months before he was recalled in this Ashes, he looked completely toothless the majority of the time in the 12 Tests he played. He was bowling accurately and only going at 3rpo (which is decent) but he hardly ever looked threatening and the result of that was that he was only taking 2 wickets per Test on average. You can't carry a bowler averaging 45 with a strike rate in the mid-90s just because he's accurate. Had someone like James Faulkner (who is similarly accurate to Siddle) played those 12 Tests instead it's hard to imagine he would have averaged more than 45. Meanwhile, he would have added way more in the batting department and also has way more upside than Siddle. Siddle looked great at The Oval but those kind of English conditions suit him to a tee whereas the completely unresponsive decks in Bangladesh are similar to those on which he looked most pedestrian recently in the UAE (2-217), at Adelaide (2-109)and Port Elizabeth (2-185). Siddle's saving grace is that the Test team are so lacking in experience now with all the retirements and now Warner injured that he may be needed for his leadership. Otherwise there would be little to gain in sticking with him.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Cheers Really. You get the feeling Johnson's career is winding down now...the one thing that may keep him, and the selectors, invested is that South Africa tour Australia in just over 12 months and his Test record against them is amazing both home and away.
Don Freo
Guest
Lyon is our best spinner. Agar is beautifully on track with his career but he hasn't caught Lyon yet. He can wait.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Not in one dayers he wouldn't. Has a poor average and worse strike rate.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
It was like Wade just didn't see it. His gloves would not have had to move and he STILL missed it.
Zim Zam
Roar Rookie
Hey, he's doing well in the ODIs. I didn't respond to that part because I've got nothing to say against it, and likewise his bowling in the Tests was fine, nothing to pick at there. I'm just pointing out, a tour average of 50 is all very well but you can't spin it in any way to say he batted well in the Ashes.
dan ced
Guest
My knocking of Mitch has stopped with seeing some of his bowling in the Ashes, have never seen enough from him with the ball to impress me.. but that has changed. I will give him time (about 1/4 of the time his brother has had) to get more consistency/runs with the bat. He is the perfect replacement for Watson in the lower order.
dan ced
Guest
Must've missed the highlights of his overs. Should he be in the test team ahead of Lyon Don? Maybe a swap for our existing part time spinner in the ODI team.. but not the test team.
The Bush
Roar Guru
I don't think you can say that we've always had an allrounder. We've had batsman that can roll the arm over, but allrouders they are not. Mark Waugh is not, for example, an allrounder, at least not in Test cricket, but he was a more than handy bowler if need be, especially in ODI cricket. I always felt that if Clarke's back had been up to it, we wouldn't have had such a need for an allrounder as we could have gotten a lot of overs out of his more than useful spin. Between Warner and Smith, I personally think we have enough bowling options without the need for allrounder. However I am willing to persist with M Marsh because he looks like he has the talent to be a true allrounder, i.e. good enough with bat or ball to be selected for that skill alone. Time will tell though and hopefully we're not talking about his "potential" in 2025, like we have been doing with Watto for a decade.