Peter Handscomb’s run plundering in last week’s Sheffield Shield final is further evidence that he is Australia’s middle order Test-batsman-in-waiting.
Originally a wicketkeeper, Handscomb has developed swiftly since deciding to focus on his batting. Over the past two Shield seasons, he has cracked six hundreds from 21 matches amid an impressive haul of 1431 runs at 48.
Unlike the many other young batsmen who have had one great season and then faded in recent years, Handscomb has strung together influential Shield campaigns back-to-back, a strong indicator that a player is ready for the top level.
Crucially, he has shown the ability to make runs at pivotal junctures for Victoria, as displayed once more with his double of 111 and 61no as Victoria defeated South Australia in the final.
Opposed to South Australia’s in-form pace attack, Handscomb displayed one of the most valuable attributes for a long-form batsman – the ability to seamlessly switch gears within an innings.
In the first dig, he crunched four early boundaries to cruise to 23 from 24 balls. Then, as his batting partner Travis Dean began to show greater intent, Handscomb changed into consolidation mode, content to take 66 balls to score the further 27 runs needed to reach his half century.
Once he passed that milestone, Handscomb moved back into attack mode, scoring 23 from his next 30 balls as he and Dean tried to heap the pressure on the South Australian attack.
Then the quick wickets of Dean and keeper Matthew Wade prompted Handscomb to alter his approach once more, going back into his shell as he tried to halt the Redbacks momentum. As he approached and then passed his ton, Handscomb again switched gears, smacking a cluster of boundaries.
Adapting your strokeplay to the changing circumstances of the match in this manner is something which too often has been missing among the Australian Test batsmen. Again and again we have seen Australian players look to force the pace when what the side really needed was some patient, stubborn batting to stem the opposition’s charge.
At other times, Australian batsmen have been guilty of being unable to up their strike rate when the situation required it. One-paced batting has been a major problem. There is heavy focus on picking for Tests batsmen who are adept against spin or compact against the swinging ball. But match awareness and the gift of having multiple gears is almost as important for a budding Test batsman.
Handscomb actually ticks all three of those boxes. Batting in the top four for Victoria he has shown that he is a fine player of pace, whether off the front or back foot. What has really caught the eye, however, is his nimble and assertive batting against slow bowlers.
This has been evident not only in the Shield but was also underlined during the Australia A tour of India last July. On a very dry and dusty Chennai pitch, Australia A were in trouble at 4-75 in the first innings of the first Unofficial Test.
India boasted Test paceman Umesh Yadav and high-class spinners Amit Mishra and Pragyan Ojha, who together have 231 Test wickets to their names. Handscomb defied this potent attack for four hours in blazing 40C heat in making 91.
If Australia are to become the undisputed number one Test side in the world then success in Asia is non-negotiable and fleet-footed batsmen like Handscomb will be required.
At just 24 years old, he is young enough to potentially play international cricket for a decade, yet also has significant first-class experience, with 54 matches to his name – almost as many as Mitchell Starc and more than Josh Hazlewood.
While Australia’s Test batting line-up is currently in fine shape, should they need a middle-order replacement at some point this year that opportunity should be given to Handscomb.
Bearfax
Guest
Missed the fundamental point here Andy. Handscomb only played that game because his team scraped into the final. That gave him an extra game for him to display his skills, which players like Patterson were not afforded. I'm not dismissing the runs scored, I'm merely pointing out game for game this season, Patterson had been averaging 12 runs better than Handscomb. The last match boosted Handsomb's average (though still 5 runs short of Patterson and Bancroft), a match which neither Patterson or Bancroft had the opportunity to play.
Don Freo
Guest
"It is only negligible when such a batsman is a tailender..." I did notice. That's why I used that example.
Bearfax
Guest
You obviously didnt notice Don that he was in fact a tailender or close to in several of his early matches, which did tend to coincide with his not out scores. How should a player like Bancroft feel in not only opening and facing the full force of a bowling attack and rarely left not out because he's an opener, compared to a player who was near the bottom half of the team and has several not out scores and a better average, Is he a better player than Bancroft therefore?
Don Freo
Guest
Until your last sentence my comment would be: I know. To your last sentence, I'd say it would be unfair to consider them dismissed. They weren't. It is only negligible when such a batsman is a tailender. For example someone like SOK will not risk a wicket for the team but will prefer a lengthy 11 not out just so he can can have a high 20s career average and NSWelshnen can call him an all rounder. A higher order batsman earns the not out because he has actually played an innings.
Bearfax
Guest
With not out scores Don, batsmen get freebies. Its virtually ensuring that you double your preceding scores worth for only one wicket taken.. So if I score in the preceding innings 50 and I'm left not out 50 in the next innings, its as if I played only one innings and was out for 100. A batsman with the not out 50 score would have to finally score a total of 150 and then out to get the same value in averages. Hardly fair dont you think.
Don Freo
Guest
As a stats freak, you know that no measure of a performance is based on what "might" happen...even if it is the next ball.
Bearfax
Guest
Sorry Don but that logic has two sides to it. When someone is not out, they could score another hundred. But they could also be out next ball. The problem is that the not out use in averages assumes the former and ignores the latter
Don Freo
Guest
Cartwright is not that kind of batsman. He is an explosive match winner. Came into prominence 3 or 4 years ago with a 60 or 70 off about 40 balls in a tour OD match. He does, however have that second game that we saw this season...an ability to build. Just remember, Bear, that if you get a score and it is a not out, it suggests that not only can you score runs, it also means you are hard to get out. Funny how that works.
Bearfax
Guest
A serious maybe guy. he's only played batted in 13 innings in Shield and 3 of those were not out scores boosting his figures (I'm always suspicious of batting averages with too many not out scores). Noted he's also 24 so not a baby. I would say with some decent bowling he is off to a fairly good start. But its far to early to say how well he will go. As so often happens young blades come in explosively and then are found out and then have to knuckle down and address deficiencies. We already saw that with Heazlett, Renshaw and Dean. Great starts but brought down to Earth a little as the season progressed. But like them he look to have the basics to succeed.. Time will tell.
Craig Swanson
Guest
I see Cartwright with a big future. Impressed me in a few Matador Cup games and in the Shield. A serious talent that Langer should play in all formats.
Craig Swanson
Guest
You talking about Handscomb DAVROS? If so that backs up what I posted earlier. He has a serious technical flaw and will get found out at test level. Amazed this was not sorted when he was coming thru the youth ranks.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
If you are going to discount Handscomb's best game of the season and then judge him based on that average, then you might as well pick out Pattersons best game and take that out and see what that does to his season average. I would argue that the fact Handscomb made runs in the final it makes his season better than what his average suggests. The ability to stand up and win the game for your team in the final should not be underplayed
davros
Guest
Really ? i watched those shield games and i have rarely seen a player get away with so many plays and misses ...so many in fact that the south oz coach actually reported the no in the media ...he was damn lucky i would say to plunder those runs
Bearfax
Guest
Regrettably Nudge you are probably right. Rod Marsh is fixated like a crack on a record too often played.
Bearfax
Guest
Like I said, I accept your arguments. But we're still talking about a far more experienced player and you made no comment regarding my suggestion of Patterson having to handle No 3 at 21 years. I would expect Hanscomb to be showing us something over the past two years but as I also pointed out, if Handscomb had not played in the final this year he would have averaged only 36 for the season. Patterson was averaging near 48, a big difference. Patterson didnt have the opportunity of playing the extra game, which significantly boosted Handscomb's average. His performance during the standard games this year was average at best.
Nudge
Guest
Good stats Ronan, although i would imagine there averages would have been very similar before the shield final. Who knows if NSW's made the final Patterson may have made 170 for once out and those stats would be in Patterson's favour. I'm certainly more than happy that Handscombe scoring plenty of runs but still can't get passed that 38 first class average,even if he was keeping for a chunck of his career. Let's not forget Wade has kept his whole career and batted 5 or 6 and averages more than what Handscombe does. I think we all know who the next cab off the rank is in the selectors eyes anyway, and it ain't a guy under 30
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
Bearfax as I pointed out in the story, Handscomb used to be a keeper, batting at 7, hence his lower career batting average. So comparing his career average to the career average of specialist batsmen is misguided. Since becoming a specialist batsmen himself, no one has hit more Shield tons than Handscomb - six tons in his past 21 matches is outstanding, all the while averaging just under 50. These are their records over the past two Shield seasons: Handscomb...1438 runs at 48, including 6 centuries Patterson.......1109 runs at 41, including 3 centuries.
Bearfax
Guest
Just cant agree with you on the Patterson-Handscomb issue Ronan. Handscomb has played twice the number of first class games, is 2 years Patterson's senior, yet has a two run poorer average. He may have had two good seasons but in my mind at three weeks shy of 25, his average overall is not where it should be for a test cricketer. I tend to pick players with a 40+ average depending on their age. He has a 37.5 average. Patterson had an average season last year because he was thrust into the No 3 position, quite amazing for a kid who was still 21 years. Meanwhile Handscomb sits comfortably behind Quiney, Dean and Stoinis, placing less pressure on him. But now that Patterson has become used to being first drop he is thriving as can be seen this year and a much better year than Handscomb had. I tend to assess based on averages and age as you well know. For mine Patterson has moved ahead of Handscomb even though he's 2 years younger.
Don Freo
Guest
Shaun won't be excluded. Hilton Cartwright averaged 68 from 6 games. Not as good as 48?
Don Freo
Guest
Stoinis bats 3 or opens for Victoria and did the same in WA. Why do you see him as a number 6?