Australian cricket history is replete with players seemingly at the top of the game, who are generally ignored or unwanted by national selectors.
Sometimes this can be justified by the talent available with comparable credentials getting the nod. Sometimes it’s because of a perception that the player in question has flaws unsuited for long-term Test cricket.
But the reluctance to recognise the skills of one standout player over the past six or seven seasons begs an explanation from our present and recent past national Test selectors.
I’m of course referring to Stephen Norman John O’Keefe, NSW’s 30-year-old front-line slow left-arm orthodox spin bowler, also recognised as an all-rounder.
So what are the negatives regarding this player?
It’s hard to find and the best I’ve so far been able to gauge from Roar entries is that he’s unpopular, hardly what I would have thought should be a selection issue of any more than passing relevance.
Others say he doesn’t spin the ball enough, he’s too predictable, even that he bores batsmen into losing their wicket. But none of these reasons seem important enough when they are matched up against his performances, and this is where the question needs to be asked.
O’Keefe has been playing regularly with the NSW Sheffield Shield side consistently since about 2008. He’s actually become their primary wicket-taker on more than one occasion over a full a season. In fact, in the 2013-14 season he was the highest wicket-taker in the Shield, at 41.
Add to that his wicket taking and averages have remained consistent, even improving year by year. This year his average so far is about 21.5 runs per wicket.
But it’s the lack of opportunities to play more than one Test that is the standout dilemma when you consider whom Australia has chosen before him in the past half decade or so. All but Nathan Lyon have proved unsuccessful.
But check their first-class wicket taking averages:
Xavier Doherty: 42.58
Michael Beer: 40.37
Nathan Hauritz: 43.02
Beau Casson: 43.52
Bryce McGain: 35.48
Nathan Lyon: 37.58
Ashton Agar: 40.29
And then we have O’Keefe: 24.55
There are many who would argue the job of a spin bowler is to restrict the scoring – to offer support to the fast bowlers – by frustrating the batsmen into upping their scoring. But then that comes down to economy rate doesn’t it?
So what follows are the present aspirants’ first-class wicket taking averages followed by their economy rate:
Lyon: 37.58 – 3.15
Ahmed: 30.32 – 3.51
Agar: 40.29 – 3.51
Zampa: 51.24 – 4.15
Boyce: 51.08 – 3.74
Holland: 40.48 – 3.21
And O’Keefe: 24.55 – 2.53
What those facts are telling us is that O’Keefe is not only getting wickets far cheaper than other spin bowlers, but he is only allowing 2.53 runs per over, thereby restricting the batsmen far more than his competitors.
In fact when looking at some of the recent top first-class spin bowlers, O’Keefe is up there.
Shane Warne: 26.11 – 2.76
Stuart MacGill: 30.49 – 3.41
There will be many raising objections for many reasons no doubt over this article, but figures over a long period are fairly convincing evidence that O’Keefe deserves Test selection far more regularly than happens.
His first-class averages aren’t just better than other spin bowlers at this time, they are significantly better. And surely performances and outcomes far outweigh appearances and personality issues.
When you add that he is also an all-rounder with the best batting average of any of the specialist spin bowlers, at 28.64, surely it further emphasises that something untoward is occurring in that selection big house when Australia Test teams are announced.
Andrew
Guest
Maybe its an age thing. Hasn't Lyon got a few more years ahead of him.
Armchair Expert
Guest
Correct Harvey, Lyon's form over the last year has made him "untouchable", but SOK should of been the 1st spinner picked for the previous 4 years on shield form.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Read this a few times bearfax. Great read. It's obvious it's not about the numbers. So what is the issue? I wonder if we'll ever find out?
Aransan
Guest
If we are waiting for the next Warne, the next Bradman might come before him.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
Lyon has done an adequate job for Australia, but he isn't a match winner like Warne or MacGill. O'Keefe should be given a chance, but Lyon isn't doing much wrong.
Aransan
Guest
It is generally accepted that Lyon is performing well at test level. It seems that there are some people who seek to build O'Keefe up by pulling Lyon down. Averages don't always mean a lot, slow bowlers are often asked to bowl when conditions aren't good for taking wickets -- they are asked to be "stock bowlers" to get through the overs to the next new ball. Lyon is also good at applying pressure at one end, thus restricting the scoring and giving opportunities to the bowler at the other end. To some extent Warne was used as a stock bowler, otherwise his average would have been better than it was.
Armchair Expert
Guest
SOK dismissed Cook and Peitersen in the 2010 Australia A game, just before they both slaughtered pretty much every Australian bowler in the ashes and as BF mentions below, a fact check last season revealed SOK gets more shield high order batsmen out than Lyon, and hence more man of the match awards.
Armchair Expert
Guest
SOK is 6cm shorter than Lyon, you're "clutching at straws" Happy Hooker.
Bearfax
Guest
Nambawan, I know of no evidence to support that claim. I actually compared a season of Lyon vs O'Keefe in Shield cricket and found that O'Keefe snared more top line batsman than Lyon per wicket. It may of course be a case that you have facts to support your claim which I am unaware of in which case I would be interested to see. If not, then your comment is purely conjectural and therefore based on impressions, not facts
Happy Hooker
Guest
Exactly. And because he is short, he doesn't get much bounce either.
Nambawan
Guest
Its quite simple - he bowls 'strait breaks', in other words - he's a spinner who can't spin the bal, and ineffective against top line batsmen..
Peter Z
Guest
Well said. "Weird?" It's an article based on facts. Always been staggered that O'Keefe isn't picked before Lyon. And when Lyon averages around 35 in Test cricket, it makes it all the more galling.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
We were talking about Vettori as a Test bowler though Andrew...he was much better in ODIs because batsmen couldn't afford to just sit on him like they often did in Tests.
Armchair Expert
Guest
You nailed it in one Tom, before Clarke was named captain and selector, O'Keefe was at least a 1st class Australia A (the apparent audition for the test team) regular, where he was averaging 20 with the ball and 50 with the bat, O'Keefe was never selected for Australia A, let alone Australia, while Clarke was an official selector.
Andrew
Guest
That may be true Ronan, but how many times have we seen or been on the end of a Vettori over that broke that big partnership? Wasn't really how many he got, just that he got that one that generally turned the match. That 1st world cup match, he came on and just changed the game in their favour. Not always about how many, sometimes it's just when.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"Nobody says that Daniel Vettori can’t be a test class spinner because he doesn’t spin the ball. There is immense respect for him." Vettori was a tidy spinner but he really lacked for penetration against good batsmen and that's because he didn't get much work on the ball, he relied on accuracy and changes of pace. As a result he had a really poor Test record against the good sides of his generation: In 74 Tests against Australia, England, South Africa, India and Pakistan he averaged 44 with the ball. Vettori's career figures are padded out by excelling against the weak Test nations.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
SOK should have well and truly got a chance before they ever went with Lyon. But it certainly is hard to be dropping Lyon now. Outside of the sub-continent, being a spinner is tough, it's like being a keeper, with only ever one spot in a team meaning that to get into the team you have to replace the one incumbent, and it's generally the case that if the incumbent isn't doing much wrong, no matter how good you are it's tough to displace them.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The selectors certainly love the sorts of spinners that really give it a big rip, but test cricket's history is filled with highly effective spinners who relied more on flight and accuracy. Nobody says that Daniel Vettori can't be a test class spinner because he doesn't spin the ball. There is immense respect for him. A lot of it comes back to the Shane Warne effect. They are looking for bowlers who are going to turn the ball square when someone like SOK knows that all he really has to do is turn it enough to miss the middle of the bat.
Quitwhinging
Guest
Lyon lacks a tactical brain? I suggest you go and watch the way he got Santner stumped last test. Slowed it up and pushed it wider.
Tom from Perth
Roar Rookie
Yeah that Nagpur pitch was a real shocker. Wouldn't like to see our batsmen play on that minefield. Still, you'd fancy accurate offspinners Lyon and SOK to have a field day on it. Realistically though, our batting depth is a long way off being good enough to topple India in their backyard.