During the 12 months between July 2014 and June 2015, without a doubt James Faulkner was one of Australia’s most valuable cricketers in the ODI set up.
The third highest wicket-taker behind Mitchell Starc and Mitchell Johnson with 24 wickets at an average of a tick over 30 from 30 matches was a decent return from a medium fast bowler, and to go with that he had a handy economy rate of 5.16 per over and a batting average of 38.5, which marked him out as a true all-rounder.
He was a star performer during the World Cup, with ten wickets from his six matches at an average of 19 and an economy rate of 4.7 – Faulkner’s control and knack for taking key wickets was vital to Australia’s victory and he played an important support role to Starc’s aggression.
However, in the past 12 months, his form has slumped so poorly that he can no longer be considered an automatic selection for the ODI team, and barring a number of injuries to other key fast bowlers, it is unlikely he would be commanding a place in the current set up.
Since July first 2015, Faulkner has only taken ten wickets from his ten matches at an inflated average of 47.5 and an economy rate of 5.93. His batting has also slumped, having made only 64 runs at an average of 21 in the same time period.
Could it be that the world’s batsmen have figures out his ‘cunning variations’? His off cutters and back of the hand slower balls are no longer surprising batsmen into giving their wickets away or wasting free hits.
When you consider that in the same time period, many other fast bowlers or pace bowling all-rounders have stepped up for the ODI side and performed significantly better, one can only conclude that he should be seriously looking over his shoulder.
Mitchell Marsh has finally started to fulfill his promise and is arguably more important to the ODI side now than Faulkner. His 19 wickets at 34 in the past 12 months combined with 541 runs at 49 are far more significant than Faulkner’s returns, although Faulkner has been out injured so only played half the amount of games.
In the same 12 month period, other fast bowlers have also stepped up – consider John Hastings who has taken 16 wickets at 26 in nine games, or Pat Cummins who took 14 wickets at 18 in his six games.
Nathan Coulter Nile, who is currently battling Faulkner for a spot in the ODI team, has much better figures than him with ten wickets at 20.7 in his five games for Australia, which makes you think Faulkner is currently in the side on reputation and past exploits alone, not on current form.
If you had all options fit and you were asked to pick a first choice bowling line up for the ODI side, I’d wager many a soul would be picking a few other blokes ahead of Jimmy Faulkner.
Personally, I would have an attack of Starc, Hazlewood, Zampa and Hastings, with Pat Cummins and Coulter Nile as back-ups. You could also consider a second spinner in Nathan Lyon or another out and out quick with a future – Joel Paris – as an option, depending on the conditions. All of these bowlers I would pick ahead of Faulkner.
It seems to be a perpetual reality that the Australian cricket team has two or three first choice quick bowlers off the park injured, so it is handy to have a stable of 6-7 ready to step into the ODI team when needed. The likes of Kane Richardson and Jason Behrendorff could also be around such a stable in the future as their young bodies mature and they continue to have success at domestic level, putting pressure on the underperforming Faulkner.
His value as an all-rounder is seriously diminished by his poor recent returns, and with Mitch Marsh at 6, and Maxwell at 5, you already have two very good fifth and sixth bowling options who are great batsmen, so you don’t need one of your four front line bowlers to be anything more than a big hitting tail-ender (which pretty much all of them are).
It seems your fortunes in cricket can turn around quite quickly unfortunately. Where 12 months ago we were all debating whether or not Faulkner should be included in the Test team ahead of Mitch Marsh or as a front line bowler, now we are questioning his position in the ODI team.
I hope for his sake and for the Aussie ODI team he can turn around his form soon, because he is such a passionate and exciting cricketer when at his best, but the team cannot afford to carry passengers and if he doesn’t start pulling his weight, he could find himself missing the next ODI tour.
Tanmoy Kar
Guest
Best is to drop Faulkner & Maxwell for a Series or two and give opportunity to the up-coming youngsters, one of them may shine and become a permanent member of the Team.
JohnB
Guest
Faulkner's main problem, in my view, is that in the past 3 Shield seasons he's played 2, 3 and 4 games (mostly because of limited over commitments). Giving him the chance to play most of a season would give him a chance to get some form back and let him show whether he can still do more than bowl one trick ball pretty well and whether he can take his batting beyond being a clean striker.
Dalgety Carrington
Roar Guru
Yep, he'll come good.
Broken-hearted Toy
Guest
Has he ever got much swing? I haven't seen him play much red ball cricket so I don't know.
Craig Swanson
Guest
Chris. Steve Waugh did what you are suggesting Faulkner does. Used his clever out the back of the hand slow ball as a a surprise weapon and it paid dividends. If side are working out Faulkner's slow balls then he needs to develop some other trick balls to fool the basman. He is clever enough.. I have noticed that he has perfected one of the most skilful of all short format balls .. the slow ball bouncer. This clever use of the ball can be very effective but all too often it is, in my view, unfairly no balled by the officials.
Craig Swanson
Guest
TB. That is the wrong mindset, you the other Maxie devotees and CA seem to have about his job in the side. How often do his trick shots, reverse sweeps come off and are in fact match winning? There are other blokes around the country that could do a similar and less risky job with the willow and do it more consistenly. Yes he is an outstanding fielder but that alone should not give him carte blanche to the ODI side.
Tim Vetter
Roar Rookie
I agree roles are important, but if you're in the top five, you're there to score runs consistently. Maxwell simply doesn't do that. SR is irrelevant in ODI if you're not scoring.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Richardson has pretty good domestic one day numbers: overall bowling average of 25 at an economy of 4.95, which is better than Faulkner who has an average of 30.9 at an economy of 5.34. In ODIs, Faulkner has a slightly better average than Richardson, but over a longer period with 32 at 5.6 compared to Richardson's 38 at 5.34. In recent times however, Faulkner has dropped off in his efficacy, as the article mentions. Richardson was the second highest wicket taker in the Matador Cup last season, only behind Starc, taking 15 wickets at 22,73 with an economy rate of 4.68. The times I have seen him at ODI level he hasn't looked out of his depth and can be a very handy third seamer.
The Bush
Roar Guru
Except Maxwell's job in this side shouldn't be to score consistent runs. As has been pointed out to so many times, Maxwell is unique via the combination of his average and his strike rate. If this team fielded a capable wicket-keeper batsman, sadly Wade just bought his career another 20 ODI failures, and if Marsh can continue to demonstrate the maturity with the bat we dream of, then Maxwell would have even more freedom to do his job - lift the run rate. Not every batsman is there to have a high average and score "consistently", just like not every batsman should be there to "tonk it". It's a team game and the players have roles.
The Bush
Roar Guru
That's the thing, it's not a slower ball when it is the most common ball you bowl. I agree that Faulks seems to go to the slower ball as his stock ball, when it needs to be a variation ball.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Certainly India had well and truly "worked him out" in the last Australian summer. He seems to have become too predictable, just bowling all back-of-the-hand slower balls when bowling in the last 10 overs, and they'd just hang back and wait for them and smashed him. In the World T20 when he played against Pakistan, a team with very few players who would have played against him, he picked up 5 wickets as they kept skying the ball when trying to smash him, but against any team that was at all familiar with him he got hammered. I said before the India match, that regardless of how well he'd done against Pakistan, I'd have still dropped him for the India match because they have totally worked him out and just smash him, and that's exactly what happened and it cost Australia any chance of winning that match. Faulkner needs to become less predictable. He needs to be able to bowl quick, accurate balls at the death and then the slower balls can be an effective change-up. There was a time when it seemed batsmen were just really struggling to get anything on these slower balls, so some bowlers like Faulkner took to just bowling slower balls for every ball at the end of an innings. But then batsmen worked out how to smash those slower balls out of the park, so now they are only effective if they are a change-up to much faster balls. If they can just sit back expecting the slower ball like they can with Faulkner, they will smash it everywhere. To me, both Faulkner and Maxwell just need to get dropped and have an extended period back playing state cricket, and have a chance to get some form back with both bat and ball, for an extended period of time, before they are considered for the Australian team again. Players that are a bit "different" can often have some initial success before people work them out, but you then get to see how good they are by how well they go away and work on their game and become better. Time for both Faulkner and Maxwell to be given a bit of time back at state cricket to do that.
craig swanson
Guest
Boland is not international standard. A good domestic standard bowler but out of his depth at the highest level. At least in ODI cricket.. Take a look at his underwhelming results. I rate Richardson over him every day of the week. You will not want to hear this being a West Aussie Don. But what has happened to the potency and wicket taking ability of Coulter-Nile? He is not the white ball bowler of say 18 months ago.
craig swanson
Guest
You are one of the Maxwell devotees I mentioned Don. How can you say that his fielding alone should be enough to keep getting him selected? He is in the side to score runs and consistent runs in the middle order. He did it the other nite... had a fairly rare on nite... prior to that, since January actually, he had more ducks and scores under 20 than any other player.. probably bar Faulkner. He is a liability with the bat.. and should not be picked on reputation in the hope he will deliver one of his big innings every now and then. Faulkner has been dropped because he is not in form. Maxwell lost form, was dropped for one game. Big deal.
BurgyGreen
Guest
This is very much a side note, but I wouldn't include Kane Richardson as a potential backup. Contender to be the most overrated player in Australia. As for Faulkner, I'm a huge fan of his, but he does need to bounce back. When he was at his best he was able to hold the opposition back from big totals at the death, then smack boundaries against the best at the end. Having him, Marsh and Maxwell in the side makes us by far the most balanced and flexible side in ODI cricket. I'd like to see him return to bowling seam and swing as his stock ball, rather than trying to play as a fast chinaman.
blanco
Guest
Think that Faulkner was dropped not necessarily because of form, although I agree his form has not been great. Australia just want a third pacer who can come in around the 10th over mark or before and has the potential to take wickets. As good as Faulkner is I think he is fairly suited to coming in the middle to late overs. So in other words as the forth seamer he is value. So as long as a specialist spinner plays, Faulkner will miss a few. He is so good though they must fit him in.
Oscar Dawson
Roar Rookie
can't bat, can't bowl, can't catch and he's ugly Drop him
Don Freo
Guest
Can someone, then, please give him a “song” Craig? He has been decidedly unmusical since he got into trouble in England. James hasn’t finished but he is not overly special as a finisher. Just one series when he did well with the bat. I’m glad to see good quickies like Starc, NCN, Marsh, Hazlewood and Boland just bowl good accurate quick stuff. That slow stuff that McKay, and now Faulkner, bowl was ugly cricket. I’m glad that it has had its day. Let’s get back to swing, cut, bounce and pace.
Don Freo
Guest
Maxwell does much more than one in 5 or 6. but even if that was all, that would be enough. His fielding, his match winning sessions with the bat, albeit inconsistent, together with his bowling allow for his failures. Fielding alone earns his spot. We carry Bailey, Finch and Wade on the promise of an occasional star turn...why not Maxwell? He offers so much more.
danno
Guest
I agree, Faulkner is a special talent. Form is temporary, Class is permanent.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
I agree Maxwell doesn't have much more of a case than Faulkner in the past 12 months. Both performed really well at the World Cup and were important factors in our win, which probably buys them some time.