Has Steve O’Keefe been hard done by?

By Stephen Vagg / Roar Guru

On 23 February 2017 the year’s first Test between Australia and India began in Pune, India. Many expected it to be the first of four straight defeats for the Australian side in a four-test series.

Three days later Australia emerged from the match victorious, defeating the home side by 333 runs chiefly due to Steve O’Keefe’s 12-70.

Four months after that, O’Keefe was left out of the Australian squad’s tour of Bangladesh in favour of Ashton Agar and Mitchell Swepson. Head selector Trevor Hohns said, “Whilst Steve O’Keefe bowled well in Pune, he did not maintain this level in the remaining matches of the series and we believe the timing is right for Ashton to enter the set-up and test his all-rounder ability.”

Steve Smith said he too was disappointed in O’Keefe’s bowling in the later matches, adding, “He’s getting a bit older now and our next tour back to India is in four years’ time and we’ve got to find the right group of guys that are going to be there for that series.”

It was a rapid descent for someone who had put Australia in the box seat to defeat India in India for the first time in over a decade.

O’Keefe admittedly didn’t have as much luck with the ball in the next three Tests, two of which Australia lost. He took 1-40 and 2-36 in the second game, helping bowl Australia into a winning position until the batsmen stuffed it.

He went for 3-199 in the third when every specialist bowler went for over a hundred runs, and he took 1-75 and 0-22 in the fourth Test, a game again lost predominantly by the batsmen.

He didn’t have much luck with the bat either. Something not often discussed is how poor O’Keefe’s batting at Test level is – he has a healthy first-class batting record, averaging 27, but a shoddy Test average of just eight.

There were plenty of times in India when a little more starch from O’Keefe at the bat would’ve been worth its weight in gold. Mind you, you could say the same about a handful of others, too.

Perhaps noteworthy is that in April 2017 O’Keefe was fined for making inappropriate comments while drunk at a Cricket NSW function. This was the second time O’Keefe had been in trouble for unbecoming conduct; he was fined for abusing a security guard in August last year.

But O’Keefe isn’t the first Australian cricketer to struggle with poor behaviour – indeed sometimes Australian selectors have picked players who have had indiscretions on their record. O’Keefe, however, doesn’t seem to have delivered on that.

(Image: AAP Image/Paul Miller)

Various other spinners have been preferred over O’Keefe over the years, including Xavier Doherty, Ashton Agar and Michael Beer, all of whom had vastly inferior records.

Was it because of his incident history? Cricket Australia certainly hasn’t said that it is.

Is it his attitude? Do they suspect he’ll never recapture his first-class form with the bat at Test level? Are the selectors just mean spirited?

We don’t always know why selectors make certain decisions. Sometimes it’s easy enough to guess, but at other times it seems to defy all logic.

But is it fair that his Test career should be seemingly over at only 32? O’Keefe is a spinner – a breed that traditionally enjoys a lot of success later on in life – and he almost brought us an incredible series victory in India. Dave Warner was far more responsible for our series defeat than O’Keefe.

Maybe he’s just not as awesome as the people who replaced him, then – Ashton Agar and Mitchell Swepson.

Ashton Agar is 23 and has taken fewer than three wickets per game at first-class level. He has two first-class centuries with a batting average of 26. He’s a talented player who is mostly fine but who has some extremely good days. He would walk into the current West Indies side.

Australian selectors have had their eye on Agar a long time. He was thrust into the limelight with his shock selection in the first Test of the 2013 Ashes series, almost winning the game with the bat but then helping Australia lose the second Test with the ball.

Mitchell Swepson is a leg spinner from Queensland, one of the hardest gigs there is. He has taken 41 wickets in 14 games at 32, averaging 11 with the bat. Shane Warne is a big believer in his talent – but, mind you, Shane Warne was at least partly responsible for Michael Beer’s Test career.

They were picked over not just O’Keefe but also Fawad Ahmed, who has taken 169 wickets from 53 games at 30.78 and has a batting average of 10, and Jon Holland, who has taken 164 wickets from 52 games at 33.06, including 50 wickets last season, and has a batting average of 16. Both men are over thirty. There’s also Adam Zampa, our resident one-day spinner, with 83 wickets from 30 games at 46 and a batting average of 22.

(Image: AFP/ Marwan Naamani)

Agar’s been around for a long time. He’s done some good things. He seems like a nice guy. But he hasn’t won as many first-class matches with the ball as O’Keefe, Ahmed or Holland. Swepson looks promising. But he hasn’t played that much first class cricket.

Both tick a big Greg Chappell box in that they’re young. Both tick a selector box in that their first-class stats aren’t that great, so if they come out of it well, the selectors will look like geniuses, and if they fail, the selectors can say that they’re ‘only young’.

I think the selectors have a dream of playing four fast bowlers, and Agar will allow this because he’s an all-rounder – except Agar isn’t really an all-rounder. You can shut your eyes and say he is, but if you average 26 with the bat, you’re not an all-rounder; you’re a decent tail-ender.

O’Keefe was hard done by. If he was dropped for non-playing reasons, fine, but if that was the case the selectors and Smith should have had the decency to say so.

If they didn’t take him, Holland at very least deserved his spot over Agar. The Victorian has said no-one told him why he didn’t get a game, and I think most Australian cricket fans would be interested to hear the reason as well.

Good Australian spinners don’t grow on trees – especially not spinners who win you games in India or ones who take 50 first-class wickets in an Australian summer. Australia found some, but now they’re chucking them away.

Unless we have a culture shift and start treating our spinners with more respect when they’re no Shane Warne, we shall forever remain a second-rate cricketing nation.

The Crowd Says:

2017-08-30T22:27:59+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Mind you, if they do go with a third spinner, it'll be Swepson. Could be part of SOK's punishment. Bring him over to make him watch what he has thrown away.

AUTHOR

2017-08-30T22:21:51+00:00

Stephen Vagg

Roar Guru


I instinctively feel they should keep the same team for the second test, just replacing Hazelwood with Bird - I would've picked O'Keefe over Agar to start off with but now Agar was picked he did a good job. However... The thought of playing three spinners is so damn intriguing.

2017-08-30T02:08:17+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


3rd spinner is a suitable spot. Ominous for Ussie or Maxi. They will probably slot in Cartwright for 2 or 3 with the new ball...although SOK could do that.

AUTHOR

2017-08-30T01:46:52+00:00

Stephen Vagg

Roar Guru


And now O'Keefe is back in the team!

2017-08-25T03:43:47+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Exactly. It's a parody of your argument. That's why I mention it.

2017-08-25T00:10:19+00:00

Bunney

Roar Rookie


Ok Don. You use the number of wickets in 2014 to assert he wasn't bad, but then preach that numbers don't tell you anything. Whatever. Keep your head in the sand.

2017-08-24T14:05:30+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


What a pointless lot of numbers. I assume you are saying that in 2014 he when for 12 months bowling badly. Did you notice he took 33 wickets? That's NOT bad. None of the rest of your numbers have anything to do with what I am saying. Numbers never do. You have to follow cricket, not maths, to make valid cricket points.

2017-08-24T13:12:35+00:00

Bunney

Roar Rookie


Thank you Ronan for such a sensible comment

2017-08-24T13:06:24+00:00

Bunney

Roar Rookie


Really Don? How about 2014? Lyon played 9 matches, took 33 wickets @ 43.3 and an econ rate of 3.52, and strike rate of 73.6. And that included the match against India at the Adelaide oval where he took 12 wickets. The average I can live with - its the economy rate that really hurts. History shows that pressure formed by drying up the runs gets wickets for the team. With Lyon going at 3.5 for an entire year, it shows he's hurting the team. 2016 was similar - econ rate of 3.4 for the year isn't good enough. I don't have a problem with Lyon. I'm not baying for his head, or pushing the selection of someone over him. So I feel fairly balanced when looking at the selection, and I've noticed the disparity between the selectors words supporting one player's selection and justifying jettisoning another. Lyon took 12-for against India in late 2014, and 12 months (maybe more) later I heard Rod Marsh reference that performance as reason for keeping him; "We know what he can do". SOK takes 12-for in Pune and is punted 3 matches later because his last 3 weren't as good. Australia won 1 match on the India tour, and it was largely due to the bowling of O'Keefe, who took the 2nd best figures ever in India by a touring player. Game two, Lyon has his time in the spotlight with an 8-for in the first innings, but takes none in the second and we lose. Compared side-by-side, the stats for both over the entire tour of India are very similar, with O'Keefe's figure slightly better. If you compare their outputs from halfway through the 2nd test, which is when our wicket taking problems started, again, they are strikingly similar, with O'Keefes numbers just shading Lyon's. So why is his "failure" to take more wickets in the last three games enough for him to get punted, when he arguably bowled better than Lyon for a significant portion of those three games?? Whole tour Lyon - 166.2 overs, 19 wickets for 480 runs, econ 2.88, avg 25.26, SR 52.5 SOK - 179.1 overs, 19 wickets for 442 runs, econ 2.46, avg 23.26, SR 56.5 From Halfway thru second test Lyon - 118.1 overs, 6 wickets for 356 runs, econ 3.01, avg 59.33, SR 118.2 SOK - 130.0 overs, 6 wickets for 332 runs, econ 2.55, avg 55.33, SR 130.0

AUTHOR

2017-08-24T07:42:55+00:00

Stephen Vagg

Roar Guru


PS Thanks, Dutski!

2017-08-24T01:34:54+00:00

Chris Kettlewell

Roar Guru


I never said Agar to bat at 6. Not even close. I was saying that thinking more long term, rather than just selecting him as a second spinner for Bangladesh, if Maxwell cements the #6 spot and improves his bowling to the point he's a very useful test spinner, then that gives the advantage to Agar (and any other spinner who turns it away from that bat) over Lyon when it comes to selecting the #1 spinner, because there's already an offie in the side.

2017-08-24T01:32:32+00:00

Chris Kettlewell

Roar Guru


Agar also plays out of the WACA where the fast bowlers tend to do all the damage and there isn't a lot for the spinners, and he showed last year in one match where he played in good spinning conditions he can be incredibly dangerous. That's where the selectors will sometimes look beyond just pure statistics. Holland may still be a superior bowler, Agar's pretty young still, probably 5 years from the sort of age where spinners tend to peak, so that would make sense, but it may be closer than his raw, overall stats show.

2017-08-23T22:31:14+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


SOK seems to be isolated in his behaviour...not a party boy at all. It all seems a bit sad and lonely. Cricket is a team game. He needs to make adjustments.

2017-08-23T22:25:46+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Marsh and Wade have 2 strings to their bow. Marsh, in particular did well enough with his second string for the selectors to exercise patience. Sok's second striken has been snapped for nany seasons now...as has his ability to make sober judgements. That leaves him with one thing to offer. Not worth the wait.

2017-08-23T22:18:47+00:00

Don Freo

Guest


Exactly. He may well be the only person in Australia who hasn't heard that message. The rest of Australia doesn't need to know why he is on the nose. He does.

AUTHOR

2017-08-23T18:43:34+00:00

Stephen Vagg

Roar Guru


O'Reilly may have been having a dig at Bradman (as he was want to do) for overlooking some players who liked to party... such as Keith Miller - who was an almost automatic selection but was overlooked for the 1949 tour of South Africa and the Australian captaincy when Bradman was a big behind the scenes influence. You could almost do an Australian all-time-hard-partying XI, with Miller, Andrew Symonds, Doug Walters, Steve O'Keefe, Rod Marsh, Greg Matthews...

AUTHOR

2017-08-23T18:28:44+00:00

Stephen Vagg

Roar Guru


Some players get endless chances (eg Mitchell Marsh), some players get a fair few chances, other players get no chances.

AUTHOR

2017-08-23T18:24:54+00:00

Stephen Vagg

Roar Guru


I do understand that... just feel Holland would have been a better alternative.

AUTHOR

2017-08-23T18:23:29+00:00

Stephen Vagg

Roar Guru


Completely understand this argument... but Agar's bowling average is 40.. with a strike rate of less than three wickets a game... If it comes down to picking between two bowlers of relatively equal ability with the ball, absolutely, pick the stronger batsman. But is that the case here? And it isn't the tail who keeps us losing matches it's the top six.

2017-08-23T16:54:46+00:00

Ronan O'Connell

Expert


"against a visibly tired Indian team on its last legs which prior to the series had played an incredible 14 tests in less than 3 months." No, India only played four Tests (not 14) in the 3 months before the series against Australia.

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar