James Faulkner is a phenomenal cricketer. Australia could give their side an x-factor by finding a place for him in the Test arena.
My main concern with adding 26-year-old Faulkner to the Australian Test setup is just where to include him in the lineup, and the implications the move would have on the rest of the XI.
I’m sure I was not alone in being buoyed by the unbelievable grit shown by Faulkner in producing a match-saving, unbeaten century this week against New South Wales in the Sheffield Shield.
His patient knock, comprising 222 deliveries rounded out a complete performance by Faulkner. He scored 106 runs and claimed three wickets in the match. batting at six, he displayed a clear temperament, one that many mightn’t have expected such a proficient short-form ball-striker would possess.
Known as a front-line bowler, it has been Faulkner’s blade doing the talking after the first three rounds of the Sheffield Shield – having scored 228 runs at an average of 57.
Additionally, the Tasmanian has claimed six wickets. Faulkner’s sole Test appearance came more than three years ago in the fifth Test at The Oval in 2013. On debut, he didn’t look out of place, scoring 45 runs and taking six wickets for the match in a more than serviceable performance.
Australia persisted with Mitchell Marsh for 18 Test matches despite a Test batting average stooping into the low 20’s. Faulkner’s current form makes a case for him a position inside the Aussie top six, however should he be selected I don’t see this eventuating.
The question remains though, where does Faulkner fit into the equation?
The most probable solution would be for him to lead a formidable lower order – batting at number eight. While also being used as one of three or four quick bowlers. He’s not going to edge out Mitchell Starc or Josh Hazlewood, so the question is whether or not Faulkner could cut it as a front-line Test paceman, and whether or not a fast-bowling group of Starc, Hazlewood and Faulkner would be both flexible and sufficient.
Regardless, I think it is a long-term move Australia need to make. Adding the flair and competitiveness of the Tasmanian represents a good move for the team. Other sides have shown the value of possessing a pace bowler who averages above 30 with the bat. This adds crucial batting depth, creating a lineup that doesn’t just bottom out at the wicket-keeper. England’s Chris Woakes and South Africa’s Vernon Philander are prime examples of useful batsmen at number eight, who make their respective sides significantly more dynamic.
jammel
Guest
Agree with Timmuh, Andy and others: we need to pick the best six batsmen, the best 3 quicks and the best spinner and the best wk. This formula should be applied in 95%+ of Tests - noting that there's always a case for an exception particularly when we are looking at playing two spinners. I love Faulkner as a cricketer. And his overall record is good. But he should be in the Test XI when he is one of the 3 best quicks, essentially. Same applies to MMarsh really - can he hold down a place as a batsmen or a quick alone. And same applies to Maxwell. If he's one of the best six bats in the country, then he should play - or one of the two best spinners in India for example.
Don Freo
Guest
You haven't seen Faulkner do that any time in the past 2 years...maybe even more. What Marsh does has no relation to what Faulkner does. The issue is Faulkner.
Brendon the 1st
Guest
An urban myth Don? C'mon......we've all seen Faulkner pull Australia out of the poo in ODI's regularly. You've been promising us that your illegitimate child Mitch Marsh would be a super star for some time now, when's it going to happen?
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
Mate, you want evidence, try using some RECENT stats, you know, the ones that indicate current FORM. Faulkner is currently averaging a mediocre 33 with the ball after 3 shield matches, with 6 wickets and a SR of 61, economy rate of 3.24. In 2015/16 his average was 32.8 in 4 matches, with 10 wickets, an economy rate of 2.71 and a strike rate of 72.6. In 2014/15 his average was 34 in 3 matches with 5 wickets, economy rate of 2.53, strike rate of 80.4. Those stats hardly stand out against the incumbents that I listed over the past few seasons. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that career averages can mask poor recent form, or indeed good recent form as is the case for many young batsmen. Faulkner's excellent form with the ball in shield cricket early in his career has not been matched in recent years.
Don Freo
Guest
Marsh isn't in the "current Test side". I'm not advocating for Marsh. He needs some Shield runs. Faulkner, however, is so far away from good form now, there are so many ahead of him. For a start, Joe Mennie bats better. Ashton Agar and Jason Floros bowl better. Jake Wildermuth does it all bettter.
Don Freo
Guest
Marsh has been at Test level, Faulkner's has been mostly at county level. Every Australian gets good numbers in county cricket.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
His first class bowling average is 24.54, better than either Starc or Hazelwood. That would indicate your assumption about how he bowls in FC is quite mistaken and certainly not based on evidence. FYI- none of the bowlers you mention have the average that Faulkner does, including the incumbents although a couple are close. Faulkner's superior batting makes him look good value, if selectors can't forget this silly "Quest for a Test All-rounder".
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Yes, Don hasn't exactly successfully hidden his agenda form his comments.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Only because Faulkner has played less due to injuries. Look at the averages and see who has performed better.
Basil
Guest
Blah, Blah, Blah .... rubbishing anyone that poses a threat to Marsh. Yawn.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Both batting and bowling averages in first class cricket would suggest that James is far more qualified to play test cricket than Mitch Marsh. His style of bowling seems far more suited to Indian conditions than either Marsh or Henriques who somehow were viewed as viable options in Sri Lanka.
Andy Hill
Roar Pro
I am a little surprised at all of the comments suggesting Faulkner would be a good pick for India. In ODIs Faulkner has totally been worked out by the Indians and they have smashed him the last few times we have played them. His fast chinamen's were totally ineffective. I assume that in FC cricket he bowls less variations, but that just makes him a run of the mill left arm medium pacer, as his results in the last few seasons would suggest. He would need to take a lot of wickets over the next few shield rounds to be anywhere near the test team for the India series with guys like Mennie, Sayers, Tremain all ahead of him, as well as the incumbents, Starc, Hazlewood and Bird. As for batting at six- can't we all agree that having 6 batsmen is what we need and then pick the best 6 in the country? Of course, we need to account for conditions. But I never heard anyone suggest Faulkner was a gun bat against spon.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
No. If you have to "find a place" for a player then the player isn't deserving of a place. I don't see Faulkner's bowling as being likely to trouble test quality batsmen, though he does have a few things which could help in India that others lack. The change of pace and ability to impart true cut on the ball rather than just hit the seam - the latter is pretty much useless on the mix of feather-beds and dustbowls at least three of the four tests will be played on. Stop trying to fit all-rounders into a side when we don't have any. Australia will need the best six genuine batsmen for the conditions and opponent in India, and there is no place for him at home.
Don Freo
Guest
Faulkner can't have been under pressure for 3 years because he has rarely performed in those three years. He performed under pressure last game...but that is not 3 years' worth. His work under pressure has become an urban myth. The current Test side is fine, with about 15 to 25 players in the pecking order ahead of Faulkner.
Don Freo
Guest
So Marsh has more runs and more wickets.
Don Freo
Guest
Rob Quiney and Aaron Finch are bowling options too...just not good bowling options. No point if they don't offer much with the ball. Faulkner needs to learn how to bowl as a medium pacer again after 5 years of bowling slow/medium Chinamen that don't turn. He has lost his primary art. If you want the best all rounder, it might be Jake Wildermuth now. Nonetheless, Marshy with explode into prominence soon...ish.
Don Freo
Guest
Is that the SOK with the Test batting average of 11 that bats at #9 for NSW averaging 10 with the bat this year? Maybe Jackson Bird could bat at #8.
armchair expert
Guest
First class records over the last 2 years Faulkner 895 runs@35.8, 44 wickets@27.2, M.Marsh 1032 runs@28.6, 60wickets @28.25.
Basil
Guest
Keeper at 6? ....apparently Wade thinks he's good enough to bat 5.
danno
Guest
Faulkner performs best under pressure, I think he would be a huge success in test cricket. Id have Maxwell at 6 and Faulkner 8. Bring back Neville much better keeper than Wade.