Can Mitchells Starc and Johnson fit in the same Test team?

With Australia’s XII for the first Test against New Zealand having been announced as expected, with four pacemen in the running for three spots, the question that many cricket fans and pundits are asking is whether Australia can afford to have Mitchell Starc and Mitchell Johnson in the same team.

Josh Hazlewood seems set to keep his spot in the team, having been the best bowler for Australia in the Ashes before showing signs of fatigue in the fourth Test and then being rested for the fifth with some slight niggles.

More Cricket:
>> The illogical logic of Steve Smith batting at 4
>> Khawaja and Burns need a mandate for the summer from the selectors
>> Australian squad to play New Zealand
>> Four questions for the Australia-New Zealand Test series
>> Australian cricket fixtures
>> Cricket news, highlights and opinion

Mitchell Johnson showed good form, strength and pace in the shield game for Western Australia versus Tasmania and his experience and record at the Gabba and the WACA mean he should be a shoe in for at least the first two Tests. So that leaves Starc and Siddle fighting for the final spot.

Starc’s incredible form with the white ball (and the pink!) have led many to say he cannot be omitted and therefore Siddle is destined to carry the drinks, as he did for most of the Ashes until he came in for the fifth Test and led the attack with a fine performance.

Given Lehmann’s mantra of “no bowlers under 140kph” and his aggressive style of cricket, I expect that is the way the selectors are thinking as well. On hard, fast, bouncy Australian wickets, that is probably an approach that could pay off. But is it always the ideal scenario?

Having a balanced attack in Test cricket is essential. Successful bowling attacks like the Ashes winning English attack of Simon Jones, Steve Harmison, Mathew Hoggard and Andrew Flintoff speak of hunting in a pack and forming bowling partnerships, and have complementary skills that work well together.

Each have slightly different strengths; one was a swing bowler, one was fast, aggressive, hit the deck hard bowler; one bowled stump to stump and was a reliable seamer, and then there was an all rounder who can bowl a good number of overs while keeping the control and contributing with partnership-breaking wickets.

Australia had a wonderfully balanced attack in the home Ashes of 2014-15 and the away series in South Africa prior to that. Ryan Harris, Johnson and Siddle, backed up ably by Shane Watson, cut apart batting lineups for a number of years. But now, with Harris and Watson retired, are the next generation forming a balanced line up or is it too aggressive?

During the away Ashes series this past summer, the bowling line up was fairly consistently Hazlewood, Johnson and Starc, backed up by Mitch Marsh – the same attack that is likely to take the field in the first Test against New Zealand.

A quick look at the economy rates of these bowlers shows a big difference between them and the successful lineup of Siddle, Harris, Johnson and Watson:

On the face of it, a difference in the average economy rate of 0.22 runs per over doesn’t seem like much, but if you add in the fact that you would expect your all rounders to bowl less, what you have in the current attack is two bowlers (Johnson and Starc) going at well over three runs per over, and only one who is really able to exert some control and bowl consistent maidens (Hazlewood).

Nathan Lyon, who has been the spinner for both attacks, can also be a bowler to build pressure and keep the run rate down, but that can sometimes depend on the pitch and the ability of the opposition in playing spin.

If we accept the argument that the current attack is too loose and we need more control, then what are the options? The first, most obvious option is to play an attack of Johnson, Siddle and Hazlewood, leaving out the most in-form bowler in the world in Mitchell Starc.

Some would argue that you cannot use his white ball form as an argument that he will do well in this upcoming Test series and certainly past experience with Starc would back that up.

His first class record is not great and he didn’t perform wonderfully well during the Ashes. He did, however, show glimpses of form and started to demonstrate that he is learning the art of Test match bowling.

Perhaps another extended run in the test team would enable him to really get into a groove and adapt his bowling for the gruelling workload of Test match cricket.

So how do we keep Starc in the team but improve our economy? You could drop Johnson and play a line up of Starc, Hazlewood and Siddle, however, most would say you would be mad to leave out Johnson from Test matches in Brisbane and Perth, where he has a great record.

An interesting option that many have put forward is to bring in James Faulkner to the side at 7 and push Nevill up to bat at six. Faulkner could take on quite a heavy bowling workload and has proven at shield level to be a very economical bowler with an economy rate of 2.93.

This option would put a lot of pressure on Nevill at number six and on a new batting line up that is unproven. Faulkner only averages 31 with the bat at first class level, but has shown some recent form in county cricket, scoring his first first class ton.

He played a solid innings for Tasmania against Western Australia, scoring 30 odd runs and occupying the crease for nearly 100 balls when they had their backs against the walls trying to hang on for a draw. However, he is not a number 6 Test batsman.

Having said that, Marsh hasn’t exactly been making loads of runs at number six so far, so maybe we wouldn’t miss much. Nevill is a great first batsman, but is unproven to date at Test level, so I would be hesitant to go with this option until and if our batting is more settled and Nevill starts making runs.

Johnson has indicated recently that he has no desire to hang up the boots any time soon, so the Starc/Johnson dilemma is not going to go away. If Starc doesn’t start to put in some really strong Test match performances, perhaps his spot will come under scrutiny and the army of talented young (and some not so young) bowlers in Australian first class cricket will be competing for that third seamers spot after Johnson and Hazlewood.

Here are the contenders and their respective economy rates, broadly grouped into three categories – Strike bowlers, Economical bowlers, and all-rounders:

Note that the economy rate in Tests of bowlers who have played less than five Tests was not considered as representative of their overall economy rate.

Pattinson and Coulter-Nile for me are the top two contenders if Starc is left out. While their economy rates are still above 3 rpo, they offer slightly more control than Starc, and a good wicket taking threat.

Behrendorff is also on the rise and if he has a good shield season, could be in contention for a Test spot. Couler Nile just needs to stay on the park and Pattinson needs to string together three or four first games to demonstrate his fitness and form.

Of the more economical bowlers, most of whom are swing bowlers, Fekete probably has the front running given his excellent shield season in ‘14-15, his selection in the Bangladesh squad, and his ability to bowl in swinging conditions. This could mean he would be handy in New Zealand later this summer.

Bird needs to have a good Shield season after being out injured and then disappointing in the later stages of the last shield season. Sandhu is in a similar boat to Bird and needs a strong shield season with NSW.

For all-rounders, Moises Henriques offers the most control, but his batting does not suggest he can hold down a number six spot.

Agar would also need a strong batting season to be able to push for selection at 6 and most would not consider him an all rounder, however, as we saw in the shield this past week and on his Test debut in England, he can certainly handle a bat and Langer rates him highly as a batsman.

The young fella is one to watch out for. Maxwell and Stoinis both offer strong batting options at six but less with the ball so having either of them at six would not solve the issue at hand, increasing the control in our bowling unit.

In summary, here are my top two options for increasing the balance and control of our bowling unit. Who know, by the end of the summer we may see one of these units line up against NZ.