- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Every summer there is a debate about who should be in the Australian cricket team and all of us as armchair experts have our views.
I’m sure for the Aussie selectors there are lots of factors in picking a Test batsman, but in the last few years it feels like runs is not one of them. Words like technique, temperament and the like are thrown around a lot. But I’ll take a guy with a rubbish technique or questionable temperament who averages 50 over a player who looks great but averages 35.
I did some research on what were batsmen’s Shield averages when they were picked for Australia and what impact it had on them succeeding. In the last 35 odd years there have been quite a few batsmen selected who had Shield averages of under 40. Only three of them can be classed as a success: Steve Waugh, Michael Clarke and David Warner.
The only other player who averaged under 40 in Shield cricket and over 40 in Test cricket was Andrew Symonds who we can say had an OK Test career as he didn’t fail, but wasn’t outstanding either.
No other player in the last 30 odd years has failed to average 40 in Shield but gone on to succeed at Test level. Plenty have been selected and plenty have failed. In the late 80s and early 90s we tried a number of underachieving Shield players and most of them failed. Then from 1992-2003 not one batsmen was selected without at least averaging 40 in Shield cricket and often averaging at least 50. It’s no secret that this period of time was one of our most dominant and successful eras of Test cricket.
Yet of late we’ve started to roll out more batsmen with mediocre records just to fail at Test level. Alex Doolan, George Bailey, Rob Quiney anyone? Cameron White averaged 32 at Shield level when he made his debut albeit as a no.8 spinner. Shaun Marsh for many years was given opportunities while averaging just 37 in Shield cricket.
Yet someone like David Hussey averaged 46 for Victoria and couldn’t jag even one Test appearance. And that’s before we even get started on why Brad Hodge never got any further opportunities.
And as selections are now being discussed names like Travis Head (f/c ave 33), Cameron Bancroft (f/c ave 37) and Nic Maddinson (f/c ave 38) are being thrown around as solutions to Australia’s brittle batting line up.
Outside of the first Test squad there are currently nine players with first class averages of over 40 (after playing at least 20 innings). They are Matt Renshaw (Queensland), Kurtis Patterson (NSW), Jake Lehmann (SA), Michael Klinger (WA), Ed Cowan (NSW), Callum Ferguson (SA), Glenn Maxwell (VIC), Chris Lynn (Queensland) and Cameron White (VIC).
Joe Burns averages 39.51 in Shield cricket but can probably just join this group because he averages over 40 in Test cricket and Hilton Cartwright will also join the group as he averages 47 but has only played 18 innings.
These are the players that should be under consideration for a Test spot. Cowan has probably had his chance and failed and at 36 Michael Klinger is probably not going to get a go. If selectors are looking for experience then Callum Ferguson and Cameron White would be good choices.
Cameron White was unfairly picking as a No. 8 spinner in his three Tests so I wouldn’t begrudge him another go.
If they are looking for someone who can have a long-term presence but isn’t a rookie then Burns, Maxwell and Lynn could be good choices. Burns was unlucky to be dropped in the first place and both Maxwell and Lynn have good first class records but are somewhat pigeonholed as short form players.
If they are looking to give some younger players an opportunity to establish themselves as long-term Test match players then in the next few years Renshaw, Patterson, Lehmann and Cartwright would all be very good options.
I’m not saying all these players will succeed, plenty of players with good first class averages have struggled in Test match cricket. But these players are far more likely to succeed. Some are currently in form and a couple are struggling or out injured.
At the end of the day runs matter. If two batsmen are very close in that department then sure bring in technique, temperament and the like. But runs must trump the rest.
I think the majority of cricket fans will take a batsmen that gets lots of runs in an ugly manner over a batsmen who looks good, but fails to consistently perform.
Love to hear your thoughts Roarers!
Build your own fantasy cricket team and put it to the test with Draftstars daily fantasy competitions. Pick your match, pick your team and watch the points roll in to take out cash prizes on each match. What are you really gambling with? Set a deposit limit.