Australia look set to play both Nathan Lyon and Steve O’Keefe in their starting XI for the Tests in Sri Lanka, after leaving spin bowling all-rounder Glenn Maxwell out of the 15-man squad announced yesterday.
Many Australian fans expressed shock at the selection of Moises Henriques as the back-up all-rounder to Test incumbent Mitch Marsh, ahead of Maxwell.
Rather than indicating the selectors consider Henriques a superior Test option to Maxwell, it seems an obvious horses-for-courses selection.
It was a sign Australia plan to play both Lyon and O’Keefe in all three Tests, which would make Mawell’s offspin surplus to requirements in the series, which starts on July 26.
Instead, Australia will need their all-rounder to provide a solid third pace option, something of which Marsh and Henriques are capable.
An attack of left-arm spearhead Mitchell Starc, right-arm metronome Josh Hazlewood, off-spinner Lyon, left-arm tweaker O’Keefe and in-form seamer Marsh would offer great balance and variety on dry, slow Sri Lankan pitches.
Last time Australia toured Sri Lanka, five years ago, they won the three Test series 1-0. Lyon made his debut in that series, taking eight wickets at 36, while Ryan Harris was the star, grabbing 11 wickets at 15 from his two Tests.
Australia included two spinners in their Test squad for that series, but left-armer Michael Beer did not play a match. This time, however, the tourists have far stronger spin stocks, with Lyon having developed into a world-class bowler and O’Keefe boasting an outstanding first-class record of 194 wickets at 25.
O’Keefe complements his accurate bowling with considerable batting ability, having averaged 29 with the blade across his 60 first-class matches. Lyon and O’Keefe previously partnered in two Tests – the first against Pakistan in Dubai in 2014, and again early this year against the West Indies in Sydney.
In that match at the SCG, Lyon and O’Keefe both bowled well, taking three wickets apiece before the match was rained out after just one innings.
However, the first of their Tests together was a disaster, as the Australians were humiliated by Pakistan. Lyon and O’Keefe returned combined figures of 6-439 in that match as Australia lost by 221 runs. On the same pitch, Pakistan’s spinners ran amok, taking 14-271.
But Australia’s spin pair will face a much less daunting challenge in Sri Lanka. Whereas against Pakistan they encountered a rampant batting line-up which is supreme in home conditions, Sri Lanka’s top six looks weak after the retirements of legends Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene.
Since losing that series to Pakistan, Australia have a commanding 12-3 win-loss record in Tests and are coming off a brilliant summer in which they hammered the highly touted New Zealand 4-0 home and away. That dominance over the Kiwis was built on the cracking form of their top five.
Combined, Australia’s top five have an extraordinary Test record of 11,623 runs at 56. But this series will offer a major challenge to young opener Joe Burns and new first drop Usman Khawaja, who are yet to prove themselves on dry, slow pitches.
Adam Voges is yet to play a Test in Asia but he did have great success on similar wickets in the Caribbean last year. On a rank turner at Roseau in his debut Test, Voges conquered gifted leg-spinner Devendra Bishoo, who at one point had figures of 6-64, as the West Australian made a match-winning 130*.
The top five’s run feasting has been fortunate for Mitch Marsh, who otherwise may not have kept his place this long. While his seam bowling has been of a consistently high quality, Marsh has been abominable with the blade, averaging just 15 across his past 12 Tests.
The fact the selectors felt the need to pick a like-for-like replacement in the squad in Henriques indicates Marsh is under increasing pressure. Aside from Henriques, the other selection which surprised many Australian fans was that of Nathan Coulter-Nile.
The dynamic West Australian has a reasonable first-class record, with 120 wickets at 29. The concern is that Coulter-Nile has not played much first-class cricket over the past 18 months, having been hamstrung by injuries.
Last summer he managed only one Sheffield Shield match, during which he delivered just 23 overs, taking 1-68. The previous Shield season he took 17 wickets at 30 from six matches.
Realistically, Coulter-Nile looks unlikely to play in the series unless Starc gets injured again. As an out-and-out strike bowler, Coulter-Nile appears to be the stand-in for Starc, while frugal Tasmanian swing bowler Jackson Bird will offer cover for Josh Hazlewood.
Putting aside the selections of Henriques and Coulter-Nile, Australia deserve to be strong favourites to win this series and continue their dominance over Sri Lanka.
Australia Test squad
Steve Smith (c), David Warner (vc), Joe Burns, Usman Khawaja, Adam Voges, Shaun Marsh, Mitchell Marsh, Moises Henriques, Peter Nevill (wk), Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, Jackson Bird, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Nathan Lyon Steve O’Keefe
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
People were calling for Watson to be replaced, but if Marsh could come close to Watson's test output that would be awesome right now. He's not even close.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I fully believe that a lot of these issues have come since CA introduced restrictions on how many overs young bowlers could bowl. That might stop them from getting as injured as a teenager, but just defers the issue. Better having an injury come up as a 15 year old and working out you need to remodel the action than be trying to remodel the action of a guy in his mid-20's. If young fast bowlers actions cause them injury, fix the actions as early as possible and then get them bowling as much as possible. Don't just restrict the overs bowled as teenagers before they get picked for Shield cricket and suddenly are bowling a lot more overs than they ever have previously!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I wouldn't look at Nevill to play at 6 at the moment. He's still finding his way in test cricket and averaging less than 30 himself. Certainly has the ability to average a lot better than that, but putting the pressure on him by pushing him up to 6 at this stage I don't think is wise. If he gets going and pushes his average past 40 and scores lots of runs at 7 then maybe you could consider pushing him up, but I wouldn't at the moment.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Coulter-Nile is another one who sort of sneaks into the squad thanks to a number of injuries. Surely there would be a number of people ahead of him but they are all currently injured.
blanco
Guest
No chance of Henriques nicking Mitch Marsh spot. Marsh is a far superior bowler than Henriques and not much separating them in terms of their batting at this point. Henriques is only there as cover should Mitch get injured. Mitch Marsh is the best candidate for the all round spot. Faulkner is a bowler who bats, Maxwell is a batsman who bowls, Henriques is just a bits and pieces cricketer. None of which are good enough all rounders. Mitch Marsh is some special talent, selectors need to stick with him.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Could see Moises nicking Mitch Marsh's spot if Marsh get no runs in the first test. Moises isn't half the bowler that Marsh is but he's a better bat.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Is that you Don?
Simoc
Guest
Pretty dam sure the selectors pick on form not statistics. Stats are for those that don't know or understand cricket.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
That's fair enough Bush, I was rankled by the accusation that I'd "distorted" Henriques' stats, as though I was deliberately trying to dupe people to suit an agenda. The reality is I don't see Henriques as a great Test prospect. I was keen on Henriques getting a go in Tests 2-3 years ago because he'd been in great form and was still only 26yo but these days I don't see him as being likely to become a quality Test player. Henriques' selection suggests the cupboard is pretty bare in terms of batting all-rounders who bowl seam up. The only other realistic option was Stoinis, given that Faulkner has yet to prove in the Shield that he can make runs in the top 6. Stoinis is clearly the best bat of those 3 but didn't get much chance to show his bowling wares for Vic in the Shield last summer, which hurt his cause. I actually think he is an ok 5th bowler...did well for Aus A in India last year bowling stump to stump, giving up a miserly 2.2rpo from his 42 overs.
Paul Potter
Roar Guru
We're talking about the Sri Lankan tour, but let's not forget
the Chris Gayle Carrot Trophythe extremely meaningful tri-series between Australia, West Indies and South Africa!steve
Guest
If Pattinson's body hasnt come together yet, you would have to say it will never happen.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Ronan, I agree that your figures are "accurate", but I don't think they "speak for themselves". John has actually done a very good job of demonstrating that his three seasons with those averages actually only equates to 14 games. That's less than a season and a half of Shield. It also shows that the most recent season in your summary had him only averaging 31 with the bat, well below the "overall" average of 50 and most relevant as it was the most recent season and therefore more demonstrable of recent form. The surprise is that, using John's breakdown of the statistics, the most recent season in your sample for discussion shows a player at 29 doing exactly what his career suggests he's capable of, a FC batting average of 31. At his age, that's simply not good enough to bat in the top 6 for Australia.
JohnB
Guest
Ronan, it is a distortion to present figures selectively (only posting the averages, presenting them as a total across a 3 year period, without pointing out how few games he played and not mentioning aggregates - in particular not mentioning how few wickets he took in 2 of those years) and n a way that is misleading (saying they are across 3 seasons, suggesting something near 3 full seasons and some consistency across the period). If pointing that out and putting an alternative interpretation to your "fantastic" judgement of them represents a diatribe, so be it. I'm surprised you expect no-one to dispute your rating of those 3 seasons and that you take offence so readily when someone does.
Rocko
Roar Guru
Ronan good read - the Marsh situation is fascinating - developing into a great change bowler but id trust Mike Whitney more to hold an end up. Do you think they could also look at Neville playing six, and Marsh / O'Keefe at 7/8 to take pressure off at six and keep 5 bowlers? Coulter-Nile - who is he related to?!
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"You distort the figures." No, the figures are accurate and speak for themselves. Henriques averaged 52 with the bat and 27 with the ball across those 3 seasons. You're the one posting a diatribe with your interpretation of his figures, whereas I just posted his straight stats to offer context as to why he may have been selected, given it was a surprise to many people.
JohnB
Guest
You distort the figures. For a start, it should be noted that over the previous 3 seasons he played 5, 4 and 5 games only. In the first 2 of those seasons he did have good batting figures - 385 at 77 from 7 innings (2 no) and 352 at 50.28 from 8 (1 no). The 3rd and most recent was a scratchy 223 from 7 at 31.85 (saved by one innings which provided 2/3 of the total runs). That's "started 2 seasons really well, shame he didn't get the chance to see if he could sustain it across a whole season". Not fantastic across 3 seasons. In the first of those seasons he was value with the ball too - 14 at 18. Add that to his batting figures that year and keep it going, and that is genuine all-rounder country. 6 at 36.5 and 1 at 98 the next 2 seasons makes the "fantastic" description a bit silly. More accurate - an outstanding half a season 3 seasons ago. That got him on the Indian tour and his test debut, and difficult to argue on those figures. Since then - a good half season with the bat 2 seasons ago, but little since, and little with the ball since that standout effort 3 seasons back. In the season (2012/3) in which Henriques did extremely well, Faulkner played 10 games for 444 runs at 34.15 and a Shield winning 39 wickets at 20.33. Maintained across a season, they are very good figures. The next 2 seasons he only played 5 games (against Henriques' 9) scoring a decent 313 at just over 39 (an average only 2 runs less than Henriques' in that period) but only took 9 wickets at an unflattering 38 (but still better than Henriques' 7 at 45 in the same period). Since 2012/3 Faulkner's FC figures have dropped off through lack of opportunity - but he has been mostly good/very good in one day cricket and has performed under pressure. I think that should count for something in comparing him to someone who actually has done little at FC level in the same period.
Nudge
Guest
"Given the squad selected,of course if a spinner goes down, you play 3 quicks. That's the only thing you can do,thereby dispensing with the advantage of playing 2 spinners in the first place. And that's exactly why the selectors have picked 4 paceman Bob. They clearly can't see the point of picking a 3rd spinner who is a long long way off even being a good shield spinner. In the unlikely event a spinner goes down we will play 3 quicks, just like the last time we played Sri Lanka over there, which happened to be a resounding victory to Australia.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"Mind you, if Faulkner’s figures in the Shield last year were underwhelming, they were still actually a good deal better than Henriques’." That's true, Henriques had a very poor 2015-16 Shield. But over the previous 3 Shield seasons he was fantastic, averaging 52 with the bat and 27 with the ball. It seems he got selected based on those previous 3 Shield seasons, rather than the most recent one.
BurgyGreen
Guest
I agree, and even moreso when it comes to Test allrounders. Very good ones are exceedingly rare. Watson was one of our most successful ever. We haven't had a genuinely great one since Keith Miller. If Marsh averages 30-35 with the bat and 30 with the ball, we'll be extremely lucky to have had two solid allrounders in such quick succession.
JohnB
Guest
Mind you, if Faulkner's figures in the Shield last year were underwhelming, they were still actually a good deal better than Henriques'. Certainly Henriques had injury issues, but then Faulkner (as he has for a number of years) was only able to play part of the FC season because of limited overs commitments. While the criteria you set out in your last 2 paragraphs are perfectly reasonable, they do prompt the question - do they apply to Henriques also? Has he ever threatened to become a dominant bowler (Faulkner did do that in 3 successive seasons before limited overs cricket greatly reduced his opportunities)? Has he had a Shield season averaging high 30s or better with the bat? Actually, no. He's had a good season average 3 times - but only ever for half a season (most games 6).