Australia seem to be considering a radical change of approach, playing three specialist spinners in their Test XI in India, dropping Josh Hazlewood and handing the new ball to Mitch Marsh.
Selector Mark Waugh flagged this bold choice while commentating on the Big Bash League on the weekend.
“You could play one quick and then play Mitchell Marsh as the opening bowler and slide someone (a spinner) in,” Waugh said.
Then Australia made the major move on Sunday of picking four frontline spinners in their 16-man squad – Nathan Lyon, Steve O’Keefe, Mitchell Swepson and Ashton Agar.
This is significant given they’ve only picked two tweakers on each of their last three tours of Asia – Sri Lanka in 2016, Pakistan (2014) and India (2013).
On Sunday, interim Chairman of Selectors Trevor Hohns fanned the fire started by Waugh, saying Swepson and Agar had been selected in case “we need a third spinner, if the conditions suit that type of bowling”.
And, of course, conditions in India will certainly “suit that type of bowling”.
Then intrigue about Mitch Marsh’s possible role deepened when Hohns said his panel considered the West Australian to be a bowling all-rounder. This is a significant change of tack, given Marsh has been described by the selectors as a batting all-rounder during his 19 Tests.
The four frontline spinners picked in the Australian squad is twice as many as they’ve taken on any tour to any country in the past decade.
Specialist spinners selected in Australia’s Test squads on recent tours of Asia:
Sri Lanka (2016) – Lyon and O’Keefe (Jon Holland later replaced injured O’Keefe in the squad)
Pakistan in UAE (2014) – Lyon and O’Keefe
India (2013) – Lyon and Xavier Doherty
Sri Lanka (2011) – Lyon and Michael Beer
India (2010) – Nathan Hauritz
India (2008) – Jason Krejza
All this suggests we are likely, at some point during the series in India, to see Australia play three frontline spinners, with one of Hazlewood or Starc forced to watch on from the sidelines. The question now is how soon such a line-up will appear?
Are the selectors considering it as an experiment in the latter part of the tour once any chance of an Australian series win has disappeared? Or do they see this spin-heavy line-up as Australia’s best chance of victory on a turning track? If the latter is true then it all depends on the condition of the surface for the first Test at Pune next month.
Now, there is no doubt that Australia’s spinners will play a major role in India. But, as I wrote recently, it is Starc and Hazlewood, not the slow bowlers, who shape as Australia’s best attacking options in that series.
O’Keefe and Lyon both are solid Test spinners. Neither, though, is likely to cause significant problems for a dominant Indian batting line-up, littered with elite players of spin. Even Sri Lankan spinner Rangana Herath, who is a wizard in Asian conditions and comprehensively outbowled Lyon last year, averages nearly 50 with the ball from his three Tests in India.
Before Herath, the two greatest spinners of all time, Shane Warne and Muttiah Muralitharan, averaged 43 and 45 respectively in Tests in India.
For more recent evidence of the success of visiting spinners, consider the Test tours by England and New Zealand. Across the eight Tests those two sides played in India last year, the visiting spinners averaged 50 with the ball, while the visiting pacemen averaged 46.
What that shows is that, despite the spin-friendly pitches, slow bowling is not particularly effective if your tweakers are not elite and the opposition batting line-up loves facing spin. England and New Zealand both loaded up on spinners in that series; the Poms used five tweakers – Moeen Ali, Adil Rashid, Gareth Batty, Liam Dawson and Zafar Ansari – while the Black Caps used four – Mark Craig, Mitchell Santner, Ish Sodhi and Jeetan Patel.
Now Australia have followed suit and picked a squad overflowing with slow bowlers. If the Aussies do what Waugh suggested and pick three spinners, play only one specialist paceman, and open the bowling with Marsh, they would be straying as far as away as possible from their greatest bowling strength. The pitches in India will turn – often from as early as Day 1.
But Australia will be foolish if, while the series is still alive, they bank on spin and bench one of Hazlewood or Starc.
Don Freo
Guest
Of course Mike, if you change your criteria, you will find many that are suitable. Averages will never point to what you are looking for in an all rounder. Richie Benaud had a test batting average of about 24. BUT he played some important innings when the batsmen might have failed. When the mainstream struggle with the ball, Mitch might step up. That's how all rounders get their averages. The occasional good innings and occasional strong bowling numbers. That's why they don't average 10 with the bat and 60 with the ball but around 30 with the bat and 30 to 40 with the ball. A few failures interspersed with a success is a reasonable expectation. If the batsmen do well, the all rounder might free up to score quickly and be prepared to sacrifice an average for the team (Mitch many times). Similarly, when the bowlers do well, the all rounder is rarely used ( Marsh often, Maxwell, Cartwright...) Their function is to complement...not to dominate. The bowlers and batsmen have specific roles for that.
Mike
Guest
The sort of batting averages Marsh has across the formats indicate that he is a bowling all rounder. Unfortunately his bowling stats don't have him as a player who can be selected purely on his bowling. To be a test standard all rounder one of your skills must be good enough to be selected on that skill alone - ie. at least test standard. A batting allrounder must be good enough to bat in the top 6 and handy with the ball, a bowling all rounder must be good enough to be one of your top 4 bowlers and bat at 7 or 8. True test standard all rounders are as rare as hen's teeth - a bloke that can bat in the top 6 and is one of your top 4 bowlers. Keith Miller is the only one we have ever really had. Marsh is not even close to being in any of those categories at Test level. He's much like Simon O'Donnell was. A great ODI player but neither of his skills were actually up to Test standard. Bits ' n pieces players are valuable in the shoprt formats where a quick 40 is very useful with the bat and batters get themselves out in the pursuit of quick runs. Test cricket is a different game and is called "Test cricket" for a reason. Chris Lynn is a batter that has the potential to play across all 3 formats for Australia. I'd love to see him fit and getting a crack at no.6 for the Test team.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
the line up should be warner,renshhaw,khawaja/s marsh,smith,handscomb,wade,maxwell,starc,hazlewood,sok,lyon don't u dare experiment with starc,hazlewood...they compliment each other very well & have the ability to excel in any condition even in the dead pitches in india...between maxwell & agar i think maxwell will be a better option,between khawaja & s marsh it depends on pitch condition
Tanmoy Kar
Guest
Starc, Hazelwood, Lyon and O'Keefee all four will playall the Test matches for sure, in addition to that an all-rounder Maxwell or Marsh will play depending on the pitch. Except Bangalore none of the pitches will be sharp turner. Shaun Marsh may play in place of Khawaja in couple of Test matches.
Maroon Kev
Guest
No change of direction buddy! I said Marsh wasn't a good batsman. You said he was good in ODI's. I said that doesn't count. You said Lynny was picked from T20. I said that he also is a good FC batsman, which Marsh isn't. You're the one changing direction.
Don Freo
Guest
You are just getting silly now. What does, "Get with it buddy!!" even mean? If you follow this thread, you'll notice the change of direction of your argument so many times. We get that you don't like Marsh...but that is not what is being argued.
Maroon Kev
Guest
Who cares about Lynny's bowling buddy. You said BBL form had Lynn recognised as a batsman! Not quite buddy! BBL form and a FC average of 44!! To be an all-rounder who bats and bowls, you have to be able to bat. Marsh aint able to regularly do that. As a batsman he's not much better than Jason Gillespie. Get with it buddy. Unless he's picked to bat at 8, he should never be considered for test cricket ever again!!! Get with it buddy!!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Hi Gus, Lyon did get those three wickets, and later on Warne was going on about how Smith needed to bowl Lyon because clearly he was the one going to take more of the wickets. Smith did bring him back on and he got nothing, then eventually he went back to Starc who was the one to run through the rest of the Pakistan batting lineup. The issue with Lyon is while he gets the odd ball to really rip and do lots, he's too inconsistent, regularly bowls too full, too short, too wide and then just gets the occasional ball in the right spot. After 60+ tests he should be at the point where he can be a lot more consistent in landing the ball in the right place than he is.
Gus Paella
Guest
In an attempt to add some balance to your thoughts on Lyon he did rip into the Pakistani middle order for 3/21 and not get a bowl after lunch as Starc came around the wicket and knocked over the tail. It's not easy for spinners in Oz.
JGK
Roar Guru
It's a fair point. There is no point playing three spinners when one of their modes of dismissal - the stumping - is not available,e to them.
Nudge
Guest
Plan B isn't a chance of happening as that leaves Wade at 6 and Agar at 7. I think plan A should be moved to plan B and play A should be Starc Hazlewood, Lyon and O'Keefe and playing 6 proper batsmen
Rob
Guest
Starc and Halewood can get the wickets in the games. Lyon and SOK can bowl similar to Ashwin and Jadaja. The Indian batsmen have been facing spin bowling on low wicket all there lives. That is where Australia's batsmen must come prepared to work like Hayden did in the net.
Don Freo
Guest
Not me. I don't need Lyon to "go through" an opposition. His 4 wickets a Test will do me and good, steady, occasional 4 and 5 fors will do me. I think Hazlewood is our best bowler.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I have to say I pretty much agree. It's hard to see any remotely sensible batting lineup where they go with an allrounder and it's anyone but Maxwell.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I find it interesting how the same people who hate SOK because he "doesn't spin it" often talk up Hazlewood over Starc. To me, I can see a lot of similarities in SOK v Lyon as Hazlewood v Starc. Lyon is like the poor man's spin bowling version of Starc, he's the one who gives it a big rip, and can get the ball jumping and turning lots, but bowls a lot more bad balls and can go for more runs. Unfortunately, he hasn't shown the ability to rip through teams when everything clicks like Starc has, so the comparison falls down there. In comparison, SOK is like Hazlewood, doesn't do as much with the ball, but just keeps the ball in the right place, keeps constant pressure on and just keeps regularly picking up wickets. If you are someone who would take Hazlewood over Starc, then surely you'd have to be someone who'd take SOK over Lyon!
Rob
Guest
You play 4 bowlers without a batting all rounder in India and you're running the risk of losing the series in the first test due to over working your bowling attack. Maxwell and S. Marsh both average 40 in FC. cricket. M. Marsh averages 29. Maxwell took the wickets of Vijay, and Jadaja twice Dohni, Kohli, Rahane and averaged 27 with the ball last series in India? In the 6 Test innings he has played he averaged 13 in the same games Warner averaged 19. Maxwell out scored Warner in half of his test Innings? In his first 9 Test inning Smith averaged 22.78 In the last 2 ODI's Maxwell has been allowed to play he has scored 83 runs the 2nd most of any batsmen? Thats more than Warner and Smith combined at present. Smith and Warner are classed as Australia's best 2 bats?
Don Freo
Guest
You seem to have a handle on the stats. What are Chris Lynn's bowling figures again? We were never talking about Mitch as a batsman only. An all rounder bats AND bowls.
Zozza
Guest
Josh Hazelwood AKA Pacey from Dawson's Creek, is Australia's best pace bowler in my opinion. Even considering India's slow tracks, it would be nutsville to drop him. In fact, it is the most insane idea I have heard for many a year.
dangertroy
Roar Rookie
I guess what I'm saying is that if we are picking someone as a 5th bowling option, then they need to be able to bowl test quality overs. I'm not convinced Maxwell is a test quality bowler. That means he has to justify his selection as a batsman, and I'm not sure he doesn't. Mitch Marsh is the inverse. He is actually a pretty decent bowler, but he can't justify a spot as a batsman alone. If the option is picking him over Hazlewood so we can accommodate Maxwell as an all-rounder, then no sale.
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
Mid 30's but Maddinson's selection certainly devalued the baggy green. Ah for the days when that Baggy Green cap was worth striving for enough that First Class runs mattered. Mark Waugh averaged 50 in first class cricket and had to wait several years to get his first test cap. Remember his Afghanistan nickname? Darren Lehmann scored well over 20000 FC runs, averaging over 55 and played a mere 27 tests. These guys are half the selection panel and personally know how hard the baggy green can be to receive. It's confounding that they are part of a selection panel that throws test caps around like they are a spare wristband at a tennis match. Gut feelings, whims, hunches be damned. Results and in the long format need to be the only measure for test selection. Renshaw and Handscomb have had early success, but they do average over 40 in FC so they are half a chance. This, "he has promise or potential so give him a test cap" BS has got to stop. If that potential or promise were real and not merely a fairy tale, then FC performances would show it.