It may have been the one of the most irrelevant series of international cricket for the Australian team in quite some time, but the recent three-match T20 competition between Australia (or Australia A if you will) and Sri Lanka has provided plenty of cannon fodder for critics like me.
The series ended up in a 2-1 win for Sri Lanka, who won on the last ball of the match in both of the first two contests. Australia reclaimed some semblance of respectability in the final match with an easy win, however it was the selectors and coaches who made themselves look like fools rather than the players.
Adam Zampa, one of the leading limited overs spinners in world cricket was curiously dropped for the second match, as spin was treated with general disdain in the Australian camp.
Zampa’s limited overs stats make for some nice reading. A leg-spinner who can also bat a bit, Zampa has played 48 List A matches and 60 T20 matches, 32 of them for Australia.
His economy rate of 6.93 in T20 matches makes him an elite T20 bowler, and he also has a respectable economy rate of 5.28 in List A matches. He also takes at least one wicket a match, taking 74 wickets in his 60 T20 matches and and 71 wickets in his 48 List A matches. His international record, while small in scope, is as impressive.
So it was mystifying when Zampa was dropped for the second match of the recent T20 series. Zampa took 2/26 off four overs in the first match, the pick of the Aussie bowlers, yet was despicably dropped for the second match of the series. The explanation given was that it was too wet for a spinner to grip the ball, yet the Sri Lankan spinners seemed to have no trouble gripping the ball.
As a friend rightfully pointed out, this is like the archaic heuristics lambasted in Moneyball, where players are picked on superficial qualities rather that on any statistical evidence.
It was one of the most absurd decisions by Australian cricket selectors and Australia paid the price, losing the match.
Zampa was rightfully reinstated for the third match of the series and took 3/25 off four overs, including the dismissal of Asela Gunaratane who had steered Sri Lanka to victory in the first two matches. Australia won the third match of the series with ease.
The dropping of Zampa seems to be indicative of a wider problem though. The Australian selectors and coaches do not treat spin bowling with its due respect.
Not only was Zampa mistreated, but so were Ashton Turner and Travis Head, as well as Glenn Maxwell during the recent ODI series against Pakistan.
In the first match of the T20 series, Australia’s spinners took 4/38 off six overs (economy rate of 6.3), while the pacemen took 1/130 off 14 overs (economy rate of 9.3). After the great success of spin bowling in the first match, Australia dropped Zampa and proceeded to go with pace for 18 overs of the match.
Part-time spinner Ashton Turner took 1/15 off two overs, while the pace cohort took 7/159 off their 18 overs (economy rate of 8.8). In the third match, Australia’s spinners 4/56 off 8 overs (economy rate of 7.0) while the pacemen took 4/80 off ten overs (economy rate of 8.0). Although only a very small sample size, spin bowling was as successful at pace bowling yet was underused.
Other peculiarities in Australia’s tactics include ignoring Travis Head as a bowling option. He only bowled two overs in the series, yet was frequently used in the ODI series against Pakistan.
Head’s bowling in the ODI series came at the expense of Glenn Maxwell, who did not bowl a single over during the series despite being a handy option (45 wickets @ 38.15, economy rate of 5.52). It’s quite confusing when Head is seen as a superior bowling option to Maxwell in the ODI series, yet Head is then disregarded as a T20 bowling option.
Ultimately, it appears to be case of a lack of respect given to spin bowling in Australian cricket. Spin bowling is a powerful tool in the limited overs format of the game, as it can help clog up the run rate when used well and put pressure on the batting team.
This is not a new problem as well with Ronan O’Connell having similar criticisms last year. Hopefully Australian can learn from their mistakes and start to give spin bowling the respect it deserves, but I won’t be holding my breath.
Graeme
Roar Rookie
Welcome to the site William, thanks for this article. Hope you enjoy your time on here. Zampa is an interesting prospect. His 1st class average has come down to 44 after his 10/119 in the Shield game that finished today but that's still around 10 runs per wicket too high to be seriously considered for Test honours I'd have thought. His stats are mixed in that he's an economical and penetrative bowler at ODI and T20 level but neither at Shield level (2.8 wkts per game @ 4.05 runs per over including today's game) For a 'defensive bowler' (his words in a recent interview) who doesn't turn his leggie much, 4 RPO is way too high. This Shield game could be his breakthrough though. He seems to have really good game sense and he could end up being a better bowler at international than state level.
qwetzen
Guest
And Behrendorf 9/37 v Vic. It's all a bit academic though as the next Test series isn't till late November.
qwetzen
Guest
Are you deaf? It's been pointed out a thousand times that his fc stats aren't just bad, they're terrible, yet here you are declaring that he should be selected *and* given an "extended run". What selector is going to pick someone with a fc average of 50? And personally, I prefer leg-break bowlers who can actually bowl a leg-break.
Mark L
Guest
Zampa took career best 6/62 for SA today at Adelaide vs QLD on 1st day of Shield game.
Maggie
Guest
So your personal (and irrelevant) aesthetics are more important than the comfort of the bowler?
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
Yes, time will tell and I await with interest the outcome.
Bob Sims
Guest
He needs to be given an extended run. He is something special and time will prove it. Selectors are there to choose players with form, but also to spot emerging talent.
Glenn Mitchell
Expert
It is hard to take a punt on a bloke at Test level who is not a regular first choice player for his state and averages 49 in Shield cricket. He needs to do a lot more with the red ball to warrant selection.
Bob Sims
Guest
Yes, I know we all get lambasted for trying to transpose T20 and/or ODI form to the Test arena, and, yes I know all the statisticians will line up to jump all over me, but in my opinion Zampa was done a great dis-service by the selectors in not being chosen to tour India. He deserved selection in front of both Swepson and Agar. He is a real talent, and sooner or later the selectors will have to admit their mistake and take a punt on him at Test level.
no one in particular
Roar Guru
Yeh, countless people still misunderstand Moneyball. It's essence it was a business book about exploiting the inefficiencies in the player market. The how is zagging when everybody else is zigging.
JohnB
Guest
It was puzzling he wasn't picked for the second game. As a Qld-er, I also thought it was very disappointing that Stanlake was thrown to the wolves in the first game - forced to bowl short despite the ball swinging (and the wicket he should have had) in his first over. Incidentally, one thing the Moneyball movie doesn't mention is that a big part of Oakland's success was their pitching - with the most used and effective pitchers picked prior to the Moneyball regime. It's also worth saying that Moneyball doesn't really apply to international selections - there are no cap or budget limits on picking from the players available to you.
Jeff dustby
Guest
Another "moneyball" article that's off the mark I'll run on the field and rip that head band off
GFH
Roar Rookie
But Moneyball was about statistical evidence as well - the Oakland A's picked players not on reputations or looks, but for their on-base percentage and cost. In any event, this idea of "can't play because the ball is wet" is absolutely ridiculous. That logic might work in under-10's, but not for a professional cricket team. What, you think he's never bowled with a wet ball before? How insulting.