What’s slight-framed and wiry, yet fast and fiery? Dale Steyn comes to mind. But Jhye Richardson, the young West Australian fast bowler, hopes to become a household name too.
Richardson looks up to Steyn, the Proteas statesman. Throughout his junior cricketing years, Richardson was told time and time again that maybe he should reconsider fast bowling.
“What about spin?” They said.
“No way,” thought Richardson, as he charged in again.
The young man regularly clocks speeds in the mid-140s, as he showed at the Gabba during his ODI debut last week. Now, Richardson finds himself with a spot in the Test squad for South Africa.
Richardson is raw. He’s only played five first-class games, though impressed during the early part of the season, claiming 17 wickets in four Sheffield Shield fixtures. He also proved to be a slippery customer in the preceding one-day series, topping the wickets list with 13 at 27.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
It seems that the selectors continue to ride their luck after their offbeat decisions during the summer, such as Tim Paine, paid off. Their rationale is based on feel more than anything.
Richardson’s piercing pace is what saw the selectors go with him over the medium-fast options in Chadd Sayers or Chris Tremain. So it seems potential outweighs consistency. Intuition rules over function.
What message does this send to Australia’s aspiring fast bowlers? Perseverance doesn’t appear to be a valued quality, yet it is one of the key ingredients of a great quick.
Yes, rapid pace can be a frightening proposition, even on the most placid and docile wickets, but what about nous and swing and seam? What about Glenn McGrath, Chaminda Vaas and James Anderson? They found success with a different skill set.
Richardson may still succeed, but what’s the harm in letting him hone his skills a little longer? What’s the trouble with selecting someone based on consistency over a number of years?
matth
Guest
The other point with the very quick bowlers (i.e. 145km) is they often don;t have long at the top. Injuries wear them down. At that pace consistency is an issue (i.e. Mitch Johnson). you need to pick them while they're hot, even if they don;t have a lot of experience behind them.
Don Freo
Guest
Make up your mind. Are you calling them injured? (Everybody knows that.) Or are you calling them mediocre? (People are already aware from you posts how little you know...this would reinforce that opinion.)
George
Guest
*if* they weren't always injured / mediocre.
Simoc
Guest
Well Sayers is a trundler and a good one. He got selection as reward for good Shield performances but he is never likely to be a chosen front line bowler in tests. Bird is a better choice as a back up. Richardson to learn. The Saffers have a new quick who looks to be as good as Rabada.
Perth Wicket
Roar Pro
Fair call, Paul - I see where you're coming from. But what makes the selectors so sure that express pace is the answer? The reason Starc and co. have been successful is not purely because they can bowl 140+. They have other skills too. Why did they opt for J. Bird in Melbourne when Starc was unavailable? Wouldn't a Starc-like bowler have been warranted based on your rationale?
Perth Wicket
Roar Pro
Great point, matth. That rationale makes a lot of sense. Treating Richardson as a project player allows him to gather experience and time around the side and I get that. But it still doesn't reward consistent cricket. That's why having a development squad trailing the test squad is sometimes worthwhile.
Jermayn
Guest
Baffling he doesnt play in England.
Don Freo
Guest
They would if those guys were available...and Agar and Whiteman and Klinger and Stoinis...and Turner and Marsh could bowl. Remember these were all issues in the first chapter of the Shield season.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Just one more poster making out like a solitary poor match from Bird is a reflection of his capabilities and ignoring everything that came before it... Sayers’ strength is swing, Bird’s is seam and bounce. If anything, the SA wickets should suit Bird more. Sayers would be perfectly suited to English conditions and the Dukes ball.
Paul
Guest
Andrew, I think the selectors were backed into a corner to a degree with Richardson's selection. They needed cover for Starc & Cummins and guys like Pattinson weren't available. Yes, there were and are plenty of our good pace bowling options but if you're looking for a "like for like" selection, Richardson is really the only guy left standing. I also agree with the concept of learning the trade, both for batsmen and bowlers, but again, if there's no-one better or more experienced who can bowl consistently in the mid 140s, what choice do the selectors have? If either Starc was injured, for example,and we went with Bird and Hazlewood, we'd put massive pressure on Cummins. Melbourne was a great example of that. Better to have 2 genuine quicks,along wth Lyons and Hazlewood to keep some balance in the attack.
Don Freo
Guest
Bird is way different to Hazelwood. Bird slides, Hazelwood's shoulder and arm speed sends a heavy cutting, rearing ball. Bird, like Sayers, is back to the also rans when the ball is old.
Andrew Young
Roar Guru
Like I said, Richardson could well turn into a valuable asset in the Test team. As it stands, Sayers' form seems to be disregarded.
George
Guest
Mackin or Kelly or Tye too. Not that they actually dominate in Shield...
DaveJ
Guest
No, the three best bowlers for the conditions is what you need. Variety is only a consideration if ability and likelihood of taking wickets (based on record and form) are more less on a par. I.e you’d be crazy to pick Bird over Starc, or Richardson over Hazelwood, for the sake of “variety”. But I fear if Bird has to play, the way he bowled in Melbourne. Someone like Sayers would have been ideal on SA wickets. Incidentally, Cummins and Starc haven’t been producing much high pace lately.
JohnB
Guest
He didn't get a look in in front of Cummins either, and he'd only played about that number before going to India. Was that wrong? Maybe the selectors just don't think his bowling would translate into success against Test players on Test wickets. As others have said, get a gig in County cricket, preferably Div 1, take wickets (although not just when the conditions suit) and make a case for the 2019 Ashes.
matth
Guest
I'm in the minority I think. I believe this is a good move. First of all, who has been the form bowler in the Shield this year? Jackson Bird. So he is there as a nod to experience and performance. He is obviously first reserve. How likely is it that we will need two back up's? And if we do, there are already comments about how Bird is significantly slower than the current lot, so if we need to replace two of them, I'm happy to go with slower and more reliable Bird, and the more explosive Richardson. For me the non-selection of Sayers was a shoot out with Bird, not Richardson. Sayers can consider himself unlucky but Bird's credentials are pretty good. Richardson is a project player, true, but he has performed well in every format so far in his short career. In First Class he is averaging 25 but with a strike rate of 46.6. And in his first T20 for Australia, he came into a side down on confidence and was the pick of the bowlers. I think Richardson is not so much lucky to be ahead of Sayers, but lucky that Western Australia have had trouble getting NCN, Behrendorff and Paris fit, otherwsie it could have been one of them on the plane to South Africa.
Mike Dugg
Guest
Another overrated west Australian quick. Didn't look very special to me
matth
Guest
Melbourne was an aberration. The pitch was one that we won't see in South Africa. Before that Bird had averaged around 25 in his limited test opportunities, which is very good.
Andrew Young
Roar Guru
It has become ridiculous. How the best performing bowler in the domestic competition can't get a look in, behind someone who has played 5 first class games is beyond me. By all means Richardson could be a great prospect in the long form, but the treatment of Sayers in this instance, and over the last couple of years is baffling.
Christo the Daddyo
Guest
But Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood are all pretty different to each other don't you think? So with them you have the advantage of both raw pace and variety. I just wish they had pitched the ball up a bit more in the Ashes series just gone...