For those supporters of Nic Maddinson, many a heart sunk today when the bowling of Yasir Shah clipped his off stump.
Unfortunately for Maddinson, it seems more and more probable that will be the death knell for his immediate future in the Australian Test team.
So does that open the door for Hilton Cartwright or does it provide the selectors an opportunity to bring in a proven performer?
That proven performer is Tasmanian all-rounder James Faulkner, who as his statistics will confirm, is far more than just a limited overs player. Faulkner has undoubtedly been one of Australia’s more valuable one-day players in recent times.
He has this happy knack of picking up key wickets and scoring crucial runs at just the right time for his country.
Yet his first-class figures also make for impressive reading which one might think may warrant consideration by the Australian selectors.
Faulkner has one of the better first-class bowling averages in Australian cricket taking 186 wickets at 24.54 runs per wicket. Then with the bat that form does not dissipate with a total of 2,516 runs at an average of 32.67 and two first-class hundreds.
In his only Test during the 2013 Ashes series, Faulkner far from disgraced himself as a genuine all-round option. In the first innings of that match, he scored 23 batting at number eight and took four wickets for 51.
In the second innings, he was promoted up the order to number three scoring 22 from as many balls, as Australia sought quick runs. He finished that match with six wickets, picking up two of the four English wickets to fall in the final innings.
As that match and his record in one-day cricket shows it is his versatility with bat and ball that should put him front and centre as an all-round option for the Sydney New Year’s Test match. With debate continuing about whether Australia needs a fifth bowling option, Faulkner is more than capable of fulfilling that role.
In fact, his ability as a bowler means he can be more than just a fifth bowler. Past performances indicate he can be another weapon in the Australian bowling arsenal.
His change of pace is particularly damaging and would be a handy addition for Sydney and the tour of India. The way he bats also offers the opportunity for Steve Smith to bat Faulkner at number 7 and Wade higher up the order.
Faulkner has shown with his feats helping Australia chase down totals at one-day level that he is ready made to be a dynamic number 7 in Test cricket.
Faulkner has the power and guile to accelerate the run rate in the lower order and his recent Sheffield Shield century for Tasmania, to save the match against New South Wales, demonstrates he can knuckle down and grind as well.
By selecting him to bat in that position, it allows wicket-keeper Wade to play more like a batsman at number 6.
This could help the mindset of Wade at the crease as it somewhat correlates with when he bats at number 4 or 5 for Victoria in the Sheffield Shield, as mentioned by former Australian captain Michael Clarke in commentary today.
Like Maddinson, Wade is under pressure to perform. Since returning to the Test team against South Africa in Adelaide, his keeping has again drawn criticism and a lack of runs does not help his case.
However, unlike Maddinson, Wade has the added advantage of prior experience at Test level, where he has proven with the bat especially, that he can make big scores. Two Test centuries supports that argument.
While there is evidence to suggest that the wicket-keeping still needs improvement, one could argue that it is at a level that the selection of Wade as a wicket-keeper who can be a proficient number six batsman can be justified. In turn, this enables selectors to pick Faulkner to replace Nic Maddinson.
Although Hilton Cartwright has immense potential and has performed admirably with the bat over the last 12 months, James Faulkner has the international experience coupled with his relative youth at age 26 to fill the all-rounder role required at the present moment.
Peter
Guest
Say you want to average 100-110 for your 6,7,8 does it really matter if you have 3 players averaging 35 or a 45, 35 and 25? If Agar is the best spinner in the country (potentially yes, right now its a no) then he can be a 30-35 average with the bat in that spot. Is Faulkner good enough to be a test bowler in his own right? Wickets and average suggest so, and his batting is as good as all the other options that have been used so i think he can average between 30-35 with both bat and ball. If your keeper can average 40 and bat at 6 you have your 100-110 runs from 6,7,8. In the future I think the pace attack will be 3 of Starc, Hazelwood, Pattinson and Cummins. Given the fragility of the last 2 and the "strike" nature of their bowling, Faulkner would provide a good foil as the holding bowler giving 15 overs a day. The above is fanciful but does provide good balance if Agar and Faulkner produce to the potential that they have shown.
jonty smith
Roar Guru
Not exactly sure of his stats however he hasn't had a great shield season with the bat
Angus Nunn
Guest
Stoinus could play that role?
jameswm
Roar Guru
What about current test season? We are talking tests, you know.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
He comes into the side as a bowler or not at all. We have fat ar$$ed around for too long to get an allrouner. It doesn't work. We need a number 6 batsman, that is a specialist batsman. If he can bowl a few overs, great but that should not be the reason to pick him.
Timmuh
Roar Guru
We don't have an all-rounder, stop trying to create one. No Faulkner, no M Marsh, no Agar. Both the batsmen and bowlers are going to be struggling enough without wasting a spot on someone not good enough get selected with either bat or ball. Tryting to plug the gaps with bit-part players works in limited overs cricket, not Test cricket where keeping up a high standard for a long time is required.
Lancey5times
Roar Rookie
I think many would like to see something like 6-Wade, 7-Faulkner, 8-Agar/SOK. The type of lower order that simultaneously puts a heap of pressure on the top 5 and yet could deliver you 300 from the tail every 12th test.
Lancey5times
Roar Rookie
So he can return the same as Marsh did? The Marsh experiment is the reason to not pick Faulkner, not the other way round. Picking bowling allrounders and expecting them to perform as a top six batsman due simply to them filling that place in the order is wishful thinking. I agree that number six or someone else in the top order should bowl but they need to bat first.
Linphoma
Guest
If the top six were doing their job this slew of keeper/all rounder questions disappear. Fix the Six!
James P
Guest
Current Shield season 3 matches played - 228 runs at 57. 6 wickets at 33. Unfortunately, due to international commitments, he plays less than 4 shield matches a year. (4 in 2015/16, 3 in 2014/15, 2 in 2013/14)
Abigail
Guest
Time to give Faulkner the extended run that Mitch Marsh enjoyed.
Basil
Guest
I agreed with most of it but you lost me at Wade.
jameswm
Roar Guru
Wade can't make runs at 7, and you want to rely on him in the top 6? Faulkner can only play batting at 7 if you have someone like Handscomb batting at 6 and keeping. And Faulkner needs to average 30+ even to bat at 7. I'd thought he would be a good option once, but he hasn't got the reent red ball form. He's tough, smart and adaptable though, and a real competitor. We could do worse. But no way can Wade bat at 6.
Chris
Guest
If we are to play a batsman/wicketkeeper (instead of Neville), why not Handscombe? Maxwell (give him 15 tests like Mitch Marsh!) at 6 in the Andrew Symonds role, Smith to bowl a bit and 4 quicks : Starc, Hazelwood, Bird and Cummins/Pattinson etc To win in India we need to take 20 wickets each test - we don't have a spinner capable of taking 4 wickets an innings, so move to our strength
jonty smith
Roar Guru
I like James Faulkner. However he is a bowling all-rounder. Only occasionally can you play bowling all rounders at 7. Wade simply isn't reliable enough to have at six. Maybe if Paine or Hartley were in there then yes but by doing this we are virtually only having 5 reliable batters
qwetzen
Guest
Yep, he's worth a go. Certainly more so than some of the options being mentioned. If nothing else he could teach the other bowlers about slower balls.