Darren Lehmann and the Australian selection panel seem to have it in their heads that the best attack to bowl out any team, in any format and in any conditions, is three blokes that can bowl over 150kms per hour and one tidy off spinner.
They also seem to think that just because a guy is the best one day bowler in the world, he will walk into a Test team and be a great Test bowler. Is this flawed logic?
Mitchell Starc took a few wickets during the recent Ashes series, in fact, he took more than any of his team mates with 18, but his average was 30.5 and his economy rate was the worst of all the quick bowlers in the series at 3.85 runs per over.
Having watched him bowl a few times during the series, he never really built any pressure and when he did get wickets, it was normally against the run of the game, and he then proceeded to offer up juicy boundary balls to the incoming batsmen, or wide balls that were easily left to go by to the ‘keeper.
Meanwhile, Josh Hazlewood managed a much more respectable average of 25.75, despite looking tired and worn out by the fourth Test. During the first three Tests, he looked like a proper Test bowler, despite not being as economical as he has been in previous Test series.
So let’s have a look at their respective bowling averages for each different format.
Hazlewood Tests First Class ODI List A
Bowling average 21.75 24.33 23.42 28.86
Starc Tests First Class ODI List A
Bowling average 31.80 29.27 19.38 20.37
With so many quality quicks going around in Australia, is there not an argument for allowing these young guys to specialise and saving Hazlewood for Tests and Starc for ODIs and T20s?
Let’s have a look at some of the other guys in contention for bowling spots in the Test and ODI teams.
James Pattinson is not an ODI bowler, as his performance in the fourth ODI versus England clearly showed. His stats don’t lie either:
Pattinson Tests First Class ODI List A
Bowling average 27.07 24.85 45.4 31.03
Compare that to a guy like Nathan Coulter-Nile, who is more of a short form bowler:
Coulter-Nile Tests First Class ODI List A
Bowling average N/A 28.97 26.50 23.04
So why not keep Coulter- Nile as a limited overs specialist and Pattinson as a Test match bowler?
The selectors seem to have decided that Nathan Lyon should be kept for the Test team, so why are they reluctant to do that with the fast bowlers, who have such a higher workload?
In the past, Australia has had some very good short form bowlers who never really got a look in for the Test team, save one or two Tests. Nathan Bracken and Clint McKay spring to mind immediately. That seemed to work, so why change that?
James Faulkner has been labelled a short form cricketer, however many pundits are calling for him to be included in the squad for the upcoming Test series in Bangladesh. I would resist those calls and keep him doing what he is doing in the one dayers and T20s. He may boast a very respectable first class bowling average of 23.75, but he has barely played a first class game in Australia in the past two years due to his commitments with the ODI and Twenty20teams.
With so many other compelling options for the Test team, he is too much an unknown entity. His batting is not strong enough to warrant a number 6 spot and any thoughts of Pete Nevill moving up to six to have a bowling all rounder at 7 are premature. Nevill is yet to make his mark as a Test batsman.
There will always be some bowlers who are capable of excelling in both short form and Test cricket, although not necessarily in all conditions. Mitchell Johnson is a great ODI bowler, and a great Test bowler in Australian and South African conditions, but that doesn’t mean he should be an automatic pick for Tests in England or India does it?
So in the future, let’s pick horses for courses. In ODIs, we could pick Starc, Faulkner, Cummins, Coulter Nile and Agar, with Gurinder Sandhu competing for a spot if he continues his good short format form. For Tests we could pick Pattinson, Hazlewood and Lyon. And we should also consider some slower, swing bowlers for English conditions. The likes of Jackson Bird (if he recovers form) and Chadd Sayers could be very handy in the next Ashes series in England and Coulter-Nile could turn out to be a Test bowler if given a chance in the right conditions.
Gav
Guest
If Starc can develop a 'stock ball', he will become the best bowler in the world, in any format for the next 5 yrs.
Gav
Guest
He's a shot duck!
Abbey
Guest
Gotta agree with you here. But I don't like how people are calling him a one trick pony. He is not. Let the guy learn.!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
True, although Maxwell does have a first class average of 40, so it's not like he's a Finch-like long-form player. He may well yet turn him into a test player. I think it can be hard for him though because his international commitments have means he hasn't played a lot of first class cricket of late. If he wants to turn himself into a test cricket he needs to find a way to play more first class cricket.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
"They also seem to think that just because a guy is the best one day bowler in the world, he will walk into a Test team and be a great Test bowler. Is this flawed logic?" Yes is the answer. Watson is the example. The selectors assumed that because he was good in ODI, he would be a success in tests. Why they persisted for a decade is beyond me. I just hope they dont get it in their heads that Maxwell should be there because of ODI performances.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Yet somehow Starc's record after 22 Tests is easily better than Anderson's or Broad's: Stats after 22 Test matches of career: Starc - 78 wickets at 32 Anderson - 70 wickets at 39 Broad - 64 wickets at 36 Then consider that Starc has also averaged 26 with the bat, including six half centuries (with a Test 99 in India). Anyone writing him off as a Test player is mad. A young bowler like Starc can become more accurate as they gain experience. But a 6-foot tall right armer who barely moves the ball at 135kmh can never learn to be a 6'6 left armer swinging the new and old ball at 150kmh. And what's most relevant with Starc is his returns since he's been recalled into the side this year and given his first ever extended run in the Test team. This year he's played 8 Tests and taken 33 wickets at 25. Dropping him would be folly.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"Starc is one of the best bowlers in the world when there is no assistance from the pitch". And bear in mind that these days I would say at least 70-80% of Test pitches offer basically no assistance to pace bowlers outside of maybe the first session of day 1. In India, Sri Lanka, the UAE and the Caribbean there is no assistance for the quicks 95% of the time. Australia, NZ and SA largely produce benign pitches these days too. So quicks like Starc, who are effective on docile pitches, are like gold dust. Try playing an attack full of Siddles on most Test decks these days - the opposition would be racking up 500+ all the time. There's definitely still a role for slower, accurate types but mainly to build pressure to help make guys like Starc and Johnson even more effective. Going forward I think Hazlewood, Mitch Marsh and Lyon will combine to keep things tight allowing Australia to field 2 uber-attacking quicks at all times.
Jack
Guest
I'm confused, considering you are using bowling average as the main measure of comparison in the article, you just summarily dismiss James Faulkner who has a very good and superior First Class bowling average to many of the front-line options you listed. People need to start looking at Faulkner as the elite first-class bowler he is, because people view him as an all-rounder they ignore his credentials to be in the team, just based off his bowling. Faulkner is much more of a known quantity than Bird and Sayers, with his recent county form he deserves a proper chance at gaining a test spot.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Yes we would- we would have seen Johnson bowling on quick bouncy pitches in Autralia and south Africa, but not in India or UAE, where he has been pretty poor.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Starc is entitled to look tired and worn out now, but not during the first and second tests, when he was way outbowled by Hazlewood, who looked a better test match bowler
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
My theory wasn't to chop and change bowling line ups for each series, but to develop a core group of 4-5 TEST bowlers, and a core group of ONE DAY bowlers that may contain some of the same blokes, but not all the same. Think of it as a Venn diagram. Also, there is a need to entertain the possibility of bringing in a specialized bowler to suit conditions on some tours, like India or England. I would say that the Harris, Johnson, Siddle and Lyon combination has not been so successful away from Australia and South Africa and that some variation in that over the past few years may have increased our away test record. When Australia was consistently winning away from home, McGrath and Warne were the constants, with Lee, Gillespe, Kasprowicz and MacGill all playing a role where conditions suited. We could have a core group of Lyon, Hazlewood and Pattinson, with other blokes rotating in where conditions suit. If that bowling group can learn to work together, "hunt as a pack", a guy like Starc or Cummins or Sayers could complement them where necessary.
JoM
Roar Rookie
Agreed. The younger ones don't have that stamina yet and that will only come with consistent game time and a fair bit of hard work/smashing.
Nudge
Guest
Your right Jo, he was the freshest, but that doesn't make him the fittest. Hazlewood showed last Australia summer that he battled a few times when coming back late in the day for his fourth and fifth spell. He was fantastic the first 2 tests in England but tired badly In his next 2. The guy isn't fit enough. I'm really glad he's not going to Bangladesh because I'm sure they are going to keep him home and absolutely smash him with a massive preseason. The bloke can be a superstar but he has to get fitter
Alex L
Roar Rookie
No mention of how he bowled better than Johnson who averaged nearly 35 and went for similar RPO? Realistically, none of the bowlers controlled the ball well, Hazlewood was constantly bowling down leg side (which may not have cost runs, but cost pressure), and both Mitchell's seemed to have lost their radar.
Sideline Comm.
Guest
My problem with your theory, Andy, is not so much that you dismiss the potential of Starc (which I believe is still too early to say), but that you ignore the value of a bowling attack that learns to work together. I don't agree with the chopping and changing of bowling line ups. This is because our greatest success as a team has come off the back of solid predictable bowling combinations. Siddle, Harris, Johnson, Lyon most recently, but think of McGrath, Lee, Warne, Gallespie. I'm sure there are many more examples. The "horses for courses" mantra is not as clear cut as you've made it out to be. I think we should pick out best bowlers and stick with them, unless there is a blatant surety that selecting them will hinder the team.
JoM
Roar Rookie
All the bowlers were guilty during the Ashes. You said Hazlewood appeared tired. Well you could also say Starc would have been just as tired seeing though he has now played in the last 8 tests when prior to this year the most he had ever played was 2 in a row and that was a couple of years ago. He is the only bowler to have played every single game for us this year and like Smith hasn't had any time off since the World Cup ended when they went pretty much straighr to the IPL before WI and England. Hazlewood was the freshest out of all the bowlers to play in the last twi test series.
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
Your first paragraph is spot on. Starc is a one trick pony, with a killer inswinging Yorker. He needs to be more accurate though, as he releases pressure on batsmen with his waywardness....
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Agree Rob. I guess me point was just that. He may well fit into a test team in the right conditions, but he shouldn't just walk into every team. Horses for Courses.
Eski
Guest
Bird 18 wickets at 33 in 7 games in shield cricket last season and 19 wickets at 39 in county cricket I would say others r ahead of him atm
Jason Hosken
Guest
Starc is clearly a Test cricketer and will improve with more of it. Steve Waugh didnt impress in his first 30 Tests but the talent was obvious. We wouldn't have seen Johno's best following the author's theory.