Interesting times lie ahead for Rod Marsh and his national selection panel. After two decades of the Australian cricket team essentially picking itself, injuries and retirements have thrown the pecking order of a rebuilding squad into disarray.
A team that was already trying to re-establish itself has now, in consecutive Tests, been dealt the rough hand with a Mitchell Johnson retirement and the loss of Mitchell Starc for the remainder of the Australian summer.
The bowling attack in Hobart next week is almost unprecedented in the risk stakes.
It will likely be formed around a young quick who the selectors concede won’t get through all six Tests in Australia without a rest, a Victorian workhorse who not that long ago wasn’t sure he’d ever wear the baggy green again, and a younger, quicker Victorian fast bowler who admits himself that he could break down tomorrow.
Playing the West Indies, related to the glory days of the Calypso Kings by name only, could not be timed any better in hindsight.
Ryan O’Connell and I touched on this in the pink ball special edition of the Cheap Seats Podcast this week, when I asked my occasionally astute co-host if this current Australian side is only one or two injuries away from mediocrity.
“Yeah,” Ryan replied, with a knowing, but probably slightly worried chuckle.
“I’m not sure we’re above mediocrity anyway, at the moment,” he continued. “We’ve just come back from an Ashes Tour in which we absolutely had our pants pulled down, we’ve beaten a team 2-0 – that flatters us – who is beneath us on the rankings, and we’re about to play the West Indies.
“I don’t know if you can say we’re above mediocrity anyway. We’re going through a re-build.”
And this is the whole thing.
Right now, Australia’s bowling depth is being tested like it hasn’t been in a long, long time.
The same sort of logic and selection reason around ‘showing promise’ that has been the hallmark of the Shaun Marsh and Shane Watson’s careers is being applied to bowlers now. Nathan Coulter-Nile is one back strain or one sore landing foot away from a Test debut, because the selectors have “had our eye on him for a long time”.
Scott Boland, who until a week ago was just another Victorian bowler, has one good bowling innings in one Sheffield Shield game, and he’s being picked ‘on form’ as the bowler on standby. If both back strain and sore landing foot strike the current members of the fast bowling cartel, he’ll be a Test player.
So not only is the concept of depth being stretched by the aforementioned retirements and injuries – plus injuries to other options like Pat Cummins, Jason Behrendorff, and James Faulkner, and Bangladesh tour bolter Andrew Fekete being dropped by Tasmania – but now we’re stretching what we really consider ‘form’.
For the time being, though, this is how it’s going to be with the national side.
State performances – even one-off state performances – that not that long ago would’ve been considered run-of-the-mill, or dare I say it, the expected standard of a first-class cricketer, is now enough to have a case for selection made.
Batting-wise, it feels like those ‘next in line’ have been identified. Even if there is an injury or form concern at the top or in the middle order, people expect that Cameron Bancroft and Peter Handscomb will play Test cricket sooner rather than later.
Marcus Stoinis is another who appears to be earning the coveted mention from selectors on occasion while Bancroft is battling a little this Shield season. But the young Victorians are rocking along nicely and doing their chances no harm at all.
Michael Klinger is in the middle of another very typical Michael Klinger season, and though there was plenty of support for him to earn a Test debut in Adelaide, you always rather expected that famed Shaun Marsh promise would again win out. At 35, Klinger may well finish his time as this decade’s Jamie Siddons.
Callum Ferguson was having a very typical Callum Ferguson season until last weekend in Hobart when his career-high 213 doubled his season tally and pumped his average 25 points higher. He followed it up with a second innings 11, and with the average still north of 55, had barrow-pushing articles written.
Meanwhile, there’s been precious little written about the two leading Shield run-scorers to date, Tasmanian pair Ben Dunk and George Bailey. They sit just either side of 500 runs at 70-plus each, if you’re interested.
So while a few days after the event it isn’t surprising that Coulter-Nile and theoretically Boland are suddenly in the frame, it’s no less worrying to ponder the thought.
If you then consider how solid the Australian side looked even just last summer, it’s downright depressing how quickly things have deteriorated.
Needless to say, the national selection panel will earn their remuneration over the rest of this season and probably the next 12 months after that, too.
The days of ‘dialling in’ Test sides capable of world domination are well and truly over.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Not as a top 6 test batsman... Which is what he is picked as...
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Ronan, that's a good point you make. I'd disregard Flintoff only because across his career, he really wasn't that good. Batting average of 31 and Bowling average of 32. But Kallis, yes very valid point. Where it ties into my point though, is what was his First Class average like at that point of his career? Mitch Marsh may adapt (He also may be the best current option actually). But what are we basing it on? He has an FC average of 31, with 4 centuries. 2 were in tour games against English county players who wouldn't make a Sheffield Shield side, and one (double) against India A. What were India's bowlers like? Yadav - 16 test and average of 38.95 (FC average 32) Bumrah - Uncapped. FC average 25 Kulkarni - Uncapped. FC average 28 Ojha - 24 tests and average of 30 (FC average 27) So it was decent FC quality bowlers playing away from home. Good innings against good (not great opposition). But it's really the anomaly. He has scored one Shield century in his career for example. Dizzy Gillespie for example has a test double century, along with 2 other FC centuries and 10 50s. Would we consider him an all-rounder? No, because he did not do it frequently. Not saying he should be dropped. But clearly his returns don't exclude him from being compared against the alternatives and what they offer. If Faulkner is the only alternative, I'd stick with Marsh anyway. But to say good all-rounders take time at test level ignores that he doesn't have the FC record of a good all-rounder, more so a number 8. Time may not change anything.
Offsideman
Roar Rookie
Natural game Haddin well said
Don Freo
Guest
It actually is an ok start.
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
@Don: As usual your response has nothing to do with the comment @Ronan: You make a good point. Which way will Marsh go? We don't know. But, it's not a very good start, is it? That's the point and that's what concerns a lot of Aussie cricket fans. To be honest, I don't care whether he plays or not (on current form I'd prefer him to play if it's against England...and throw in his useless brother too).
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Ben Stokes after 19 Tests: Batting average: 28 Bowling average: 40
Don Freo
Guest
Very expensive. 25% more per wicket. That's the game gone.
Pom in Oz
Roar Guru
Let's get more contemporary and realistic. England's Ben Stokes after 10 tests... Stokes - 648 runs at 36...plus 28 wickets at 40 That's 71% more runs and 75% more wickets. Now that puts things into context!
Don Freo
Guest
I'd imagine mine might be the only response to this post, Ronan. TWAS won't like to read that.
Don Freo
Guest
You'd prefer a fit Cummins to a fit Starc?
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"The Boland and Ferguson citings are examples of how a single performance can be enough to enter the Test frame, when in reality they haven’t done anything else." Brett I agree Boland has jumped from nowhere based on one performance but Ferguson is a totally different case - he has made 1834 runs at an average of 54 over the past three Shield seasons. Ferguson deserves to be in contention for a Test spot (if one comes up), although I'd probably favour a younger player like Handscomb or Stoinis.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
People are being harsh on Mitch Marsh. Young all-rounders take much longer to adapt to Tests than young batsmen or bowlers. Compare these stats after 10 Tests: Marsh - 379 runs at 24.....plus 16 wickets at 32 Kallis - 340 runs at 22......plus 11 wickets at 30 Flintoff - 255 runs at 16....plus 7 wickets at 66 That puts things in context.
deccas
Guest
So what sort of returns by when constitute a failure. If he has only 2 test 50s from 16 tests (as is his current trajectory) is that failure? What does he have to do to get dropped? Or will you continue to not countenance the possibility that either of your Marsh boys haven't done enough to warrant thier selections?
broken-hearted toy
Guest
After 10 matches or so, neither Kallis or Flintoff were performing particularly adequately with bat or ball. Flintoff was stinking the place up.
cheso
Guest
It is a very Kiwi thing to do that if anything does not go their way against Australia it is all because of the underarm (which although morally wrong was a legal ball at the time) delivery. Kiwis need to harden up on the pitch. As Brad Haddin said "They deserve to be sledged"
Bakkies
Guest
McCullum is Shield level?
Craig Swanson
Guest
Totally agree Fred. Why this constant call for pace, pace and more pace. Since McDermott came onto the scene our quicks are required to bowl upwards of 140kph. Pace is not everything. Yes it is intimidatory but only if it is controlled pace. Otherwise it is a wasted delivery and and easy runs for batsmen. I too would rather have at least two accurate seamers who bowled at 135kph rather than two express men who sprayed them all over the place. My ideal bowling attack would be one fast man, say Pattinson or a fit Cummins, plus two accurate seamers such as Hazlewood , Bird or Boland/ Fekete and preferably a leg spinner.
Don Freo
Guest
Failure would be a good reason. He hasn't failed regukarly. In fact, he has done very well for a fledgling all rounder. The power in my argument is that cricket authoities agree with me. The far less knowledgeable...yet far more loquacious...don't. I'll go with the selectors, the coaches and me.
Craig Swanson
Guest
I am pretty excited by George Bailey's batting this year. George was obviously told to get consistent red ball runs when he was dropped from the test squad a while back. He said at the time he would lift his shield average and get back his baggy green. He is looking good on his promise with a feast of runs @70 after only four matches. Needs to keep it going if he is to push for a recall.
Fred
Guest
I see your point, but is the focus on "variety" a little overstated? As an extreme example, a bowling attack of three Glenn McGraths would probably have been even better than an attack of McGrath, Lee & Gillespie. If you've got an 8/10 medium fast bowler like Bird or a 7/10 fast bowler like Coulter-Nile to pick from, are you really better off picking the worse bowler for the sake of variety alone? I don't think that's what happening - I think selectors just rate Coulter-Nile a better chance of being a successful Test bowler - but my instinct is that picking the three best available fast bowlers is probably a better move than picking three bowlers who suit particular "roles". Good bowlers take wickets, no matter their speed. Bowlers who keep things tight are only likely to improve the performance of other bowlers in the side by keeping up the pressure on batsmen. Genuinely fast wicket-takers are obviously effective, but if they're faster but take wickets less often I don't think they should get preferential treatment just because of their speed.