BBL07 has come to a close, with the Adelaide Strikers defeating the Hobart Hurricanes in the final.
That must mean it’s time for someone at The Roar to cobble together a team of the tournament – and that someone is me.
A handful of the players in this side picked themselves, while others only narrowly edged out their rivals. As always, there are some unlucky omissions. Stats via ESPN Cricinfo and Cricket Australia.
1. D’Arcy Short (Hobart Hurricanes)
11 matches; 572 runs; H/S 122*; avg. 57.20; S/R 148.57; 1 x 100; 4 50s; 53 x 4s; 26 x 6s
17.0 overs; 3 wkts; 134 runs; B/B 1/20; avg. 44.66; econ. 7.88; S/R 34.0
Short had the kind of BBL most batsmen can only dream about. His run tally of 572 absolutely shattered the previous mark of 412, set by Shaun Marsh back in BBL02, and his unbeaten 122 in Brisbane stands as the highest individual score in BBL history – all of this at a strike rate just shy of 150.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
As if his ballistic batting wasn’t enough, Short proved a more than handy option with the ball, with Hobart captain George Bailey calling on him regularly as the tournament progressed. It’s hard to imagine what more the Northern Territorian could have done in BBL07, short (pun intended) of dragging his inconsistent team over the line in the final.
2. Alex Carey (Adelaide Strikers) (wk)
11 matches; 443 runs; H/S 100; avg. 49.22; S/R 141.53; 1 x 100; 2 x 50s; 46 x 4s; 13 x 6s
14 dismissals (14 catches, 0 stumpings); 1.27 dis./inns; best 3
Like Short, Alex Carey was a lock at the top of the order. His season was so good that he could have made the side as either a batsman or a wicketkeeper, finishing second for total runs scored (also passing Marsh’s old record) and first for dismissals.
[latest_videos_strip category=”cricket” name=”Cricket”]
Carey’s fine form was rewarded with selection in the second ODI of the summer, in Tim Paine’s absence, and the current Twenty20tri-series. At 26 years of age, the former GWS Giant looks every chance of having a lengthy international cricketing career.
3. Travis Head (Adelaide Strikers) (c)
9 matches; 374 runs; H/S 85*; avg. 53.42; S/R 133.09; 3 x 50s; 28 x 4s; 12 x 6s
13.0 overs; 4 wkts; 116 runs; B/B 1/8; avg. 29.00; econ. 8.92; S/R 19.5
At international level, Head’s summer has been a mixed bag. He was in and out of the ODI team, scored a game-high 96 in the fourth match and was then overlooked for the first T20I.
However, there was nothing mixed about Head’s efforts in BBL07. His batting at 3 was reliable enough to cope with the loss of early wickets, yet dynamic enough to keep the score ticking along when the Strikers’ powerful openers got off to a strong start.
As captain of the winning team Head gets the gig in this side, although it’s difficult to see how any half-competent skipper could have misused the bowling talent Head had at his disposal.
(AAP Image/David Moir)
4. Shane Watson (Sydney Thunder) (vc)
10 matches; 331 runs; H/S 77; avg. 36.77; S/R 139.07; 2 x 50s; 31 x 4s; 15 x 6s
17.4 overs; 3 wkts; 168 runs; B/B 1/13; avg. 56.00; econ. 9.50; S/R 35.3
Watson’s output diminished a little as the tournament progressed (perhaps from carrying the heavy burden that was the Thunder’s batting line-up), with his two half-centuries coming in his side’s first three games.
Even so, his consistency stood out; in ten innings, Watson failed to reach 20 only three times and was dismissed in single digits just once.
The 36-year-old veteran’s bowling was largely forgettable, but his efforts with the bat showed he is still a T20 force.
5. Glenn Maxwell (Melbourne Stars)
9 matches; 299 runs; H/S 84; avg. 37.37; S/R 154.12; 3 x 50s; 26 x 4s; 12 x 6s
6.0 overs; 1 wkt; 53 runs; B/B 1/24; avg. 53.00; econ. 8.83; S/R 36.0
The Melbourne Stars might have to lose the plural because for much of the tournament there was only one in their side. The repeated failures of his teammates didn’t seem to phase Maxwell, who finished ninth for total runs scored (from less games than all but two of those above him) and fifth for overall strike rate.
The Victorian strokemaker has been harshly treated by the Australian selectors this summer but his performances for the Melbourne saw him force his way back into the ODI side for the final match against England. His dynamic fielding gave Stars fans some rare moments of joy and he provided handy part-time bowling when needed.
(AAP Image/Rob Blakers)
6. Ashton Turner (Perth Scorchers)
11 matches; 252 runs; H/S 70; avg. 31.50; S/R 162.58; 3 x 50s; 12 x 4s; 16 x 6s
Turner’s tournament was somewhat hit-and-miss but boy, when he hit, he really hit. His eye-watering strike rate was the third highest in BBL07 and the two men in front of him – Simon Milenko (171.88) and Chris Lynn (162.64) – didn’t face enough deliveries to warrant selection in this side.
A whopping 38 per cent of Turner’s runs came in sixes. To put this into perspective, the next highest percentage by any player to score at least 200 runs belonged to Colin Ingram, with 30 per cent. That is some serious striking.
7. Dwayne Bravo (Melbourne Renegades)
11 matches; 42.5 overs; 18 wkts; 363 runs; B/B 5/28; avg. 20.16; econ. 8.47; S/R 14.2
8 inns.; 100 runs; H/S 26; avg. 20.00; S/R 131.57; 6 x 4s; 5 x 6s
The equal-leading wicket-taker for the tournament, Bravo was the backbone of the Renegades’ attack. His off-pace deliveries confounded batsmen and he returned the second best match figures of the tournament, taking 5/28 against the Hurricanes.
Bravo’s high-ish economy rate gets a pass because he was routinely called upon to quell the tournament’s most dangerous batsmen and generally bowled the final over of his opponents’ innings. To cap it all off, his late-innings hitting with the bat gave the Renegades even more bang for their buck.
(Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
8. Andrew Tye (Perth Scorchers)
6 matches; 23.4 overs; 16 wkts; 192 runs; B/B 5/23; avg. 12.00; econ. 8.11; S/R 8.8
Few are as calm at the death as Tye and the Western Australian veteran was at his devastating best in BBL07. He had 16 wickets from just six matches (including a second BBL hat trick) is a remarkable effort; all the more so when you consider that his outlandish strike rate of 8.8 deliveries per wicket was the only single-digit strike rate for the tournament.
Tye was rewarded with another call-up to the national side, this time in ODIs, and looked far more at home than he did in his earlier stints as a Twenty20 bowler. His canny variations could add another string to Australia’s bow at the 2019 World Cup.
9. Rashid Khan (Adelaide Strikers)
11 matches; 44.0 overs; 18 wkts; 249 runs; B/B 3/20; avg. 13.83; econ. 5.65; S/R 14.6
The only thing standing between Rashid Khan and the Player of the Tournament award was D’Arcy Short’s incredible season. His fast action and near-unpickable ball release tied some of the competition’s best batsmen in knots.
In a stellar debut BBL, the 19-year-old leggie finished as equal-leading wicket-taker and had the best economy rate of any player to bowl more than four overs. It’s fair to say there won’t be too many higher-earning Afghan cricketers during the next few years.
(AAP Image/David Mariuz)
10. Billy Stanlake (Adelaide Strikers)
10 matches; 38.0 overs; 11 wkts; 246 runs; B/B 2/22; avg. 22.36; econ. 6.47; S/R 20.7
The towering Queenslander was arguably the most consistent paceman in BBL07. He took just over a wicket per match, with an economy rate under 6.5 runs per over, and never conceded more than 31 runs in an innings. That’s an impressive trifecta for a young bowler who delivered a hefty portion of his overs during powerplays.
Stanlake’s BBL excellence culminated in his selection for Australia in the current Twenty20tri-series. If his 3/15 against New Zealand is anything to go by, the sky is the limit.
11. Fawad Ahmed (Sydney Thunder)
10 matches; 40.0 overs; 12 wkts; 245 runs; B/B 3/31; avg. 20.41; econ. 6.12; S/R 20.0
The Thunder might have fizzled with the bat but their spin bowling unit kept the side’s finals hopes alive until their last match. Fawad Ahmed was the leader of that pack.
Ahmed’s smart variations made him a handful for batsmen throughout the tournament. He finished with the sixth-best economy rate and was equal eighth on the list of wicket-takers.
Honourable mentions
Jofra Archer (Hobart Hurricanes)
Wait, Jofra Archer didn’t make the team? That’s crazy, you say. Well, yes and no. His omission is comfortably the most controversial, given the manner in which he exploded onto the T20 scene this summer, and is purely a consequence of his disappointing final third of the tournament.
Across his last four matches (including the final, in which he returned figures of 1/46), Archer’s economy was 9.77 and his strike rate was 43.0; numbers far worse than his overall economy (7.96) and strike rate (17.3). No bowler who made this team had such an extended run of underwhelming performances at any point during the tournament.
Apparently Archer was carrying an ankle complaint through his final matches, which would explain his dip in form. Whatever the reason, Hobart’s most potent bowler was unable to produce his best when it mattered most.
Hurricanes fans (including yours truly) can take solace in knowing that the BBL hasn’t yet seen the best of what this gifted 22-year-old has to offer with both bat and ball. He’s a scary prospect.
Cameron White (Melbourne Renegades)
The Victorian stalwart was unlucky to miss out to Shane Watson. He captained well in Aaron Finch’s absence and was a rock in the Renegades’ batting line-up.
In the end, White’s modest strike rate of 111.35 – comfortably the lowest of any batsman to pass 250 runs – was what squeezed him out.
(AAP Image/ Hamish Blair)
Tom Cooper (Melbourne Renegades)
It was almost a flip of the coin between Cooper and Maxwell. In the end, Maxwell’s higher strike rate (154 versus 141) got him over the line, combined with the fact that he generally received less support from his teammates than Cooper did.
Still, Cooper’s clever batting, handy part-time darts and athletic fielding were a key factor in the Renegades’ march to their first BBL semi-final.
Ben Laughlin (Adelaide Strikers)
It could just as easily have been Peter Siddle named here, but Laughlin was given the task of closing out the Strikers’ bowling performances and delivered more often than not. He was reliable in the field, too, manufacturing the catch of the tournament.
Laughlin would no doubt be disappointed that three of his worst performances came against his former side, the Hurricanes. Of course, there could be no better tonic than drinking from the championship cup at their expense.
dan ced
Guest
On Agar vs Ahmed, I view Agar is an OK bowler that got lucky rather than Ahmed, the good bowler who didn't get AS MUCH luck. There is more of an argument putting Agar in place of a Watson though.
Don Freo
Guest
I would have thought you could see Bancroft's strike rate. 128 to Watson's 135 is better when you consider it produces 12 more runs per innings. 48 an innings vs 36 an innings, particularly when you compare their capacity in the field. I reckon, like many who pick these teams, you look at Bancroft as a keeper, dismiss him as a possibility because you've (correctly) gone for Carey BUT you have forgotten about him as a #3 batsman. To bat through the bulk of an innings at 128 while averaging 48 is commanding.
Don Freo
Guest
You don't need to justify his inclusion...but you keep trying. I just don't agree. Re: Bancroft, he played 5 games. That's half the tournament. That's plenty. He was dominant.
JamesH
Roar Guru
There was no emphasis on anything, I'm pointing out that Bancroft simply didn't do enough for long enough to warrant a spot in the team. 200 was a convenient round number but you can pick a different one if you want; 194 runs in 5 games isn't enough of a sample to make the cut. I don't feel like I need to justify his exclusion beyond the stats I've given you because they speak for themselves. Bancroft is in precisely zero other teams of the tournament that I've looked at, While Watson is in most of them. That's not saying you're wrong because it's all subjective. But I hope you can see the contradiction in valuing economy over wickets to make your case for a particular bowler, then trying to use batting averages to argue for your own preferred batsman, with no mention of strike rates. You need to consider both, otherwise you're just cherry picking. The Thunder disappointed because Watson had little support, not because he let them down. Averaging 37 in T20 with a strike rate of almost 140 is excellent, particularly when you maintain it for a full 10 matches while carrying your batting lineup. The Scorchers were at or near the top before Bancroft even played a game. They had much more depth. Talk about numbers all you want, but if you're resorting to arguments about fielding ability for bowlers and batting averages for batsmen while dismissing or ignoring some pretty key stats, then the numbers aren't backing you up the way you seem to think they are.
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
James. Mature thought has led me to see that we are both committing the logical fallacy known as 'affirming the consequent' Both Agar and Ahmed dismissed only good batsmen because they were the only ones to be dismissed,i.e. very few teams were all out at or before 20 overs.Therefore there is no superior logic in picking Fawad over Agar because of his well-credentialled victims And I wasn't suggesting that cricinfo was the fount/font of all wisdom, just that contrarianism is part of all Roar debate
Don Freo
Guest
Why the emphasis on "less than..?" He actually scored 'more than' 193. His performance was way better than Watson's. One of the reasons that Sydney was hopeless is that Watto, in such a key position only averaged 35. Banners averaged 48. That's better. I hope you understand that I have a different view. I am not overlooking anything. You seem to think I am unaware of the numbers. It is on the basis of those numbers that I say Bancroft was better than Watson and Agar was better than Watson and Fawad. It's why The Scorchers finished on top.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Bancroft only played 5 matches and scored less than 200 runs. I did consider him (and White, Cooper and McDermott) before settling on the top five; I just didn't think he had done enough for long enough to be picked. From what I've seen, no one else who did a team of the tournament thought so either. I know Tye only played 6 games but 16 wickets at a strike rate of 8.8 was too good to pass up. There's nothing 'bandaid' about it. I spent plenty of time poring over over stats and looking back through match results to inform my side before I put it together. It certainly wasn't a case of picking on gut feel and then trying to justify it after the fact, if that's what you're implying. I have no issue if you personally think Agar bowled better than Fawad. That's just something I can agree to disagree on, since there is no provable right or wrong answer.
Don Freo
Guest
You seem to be arguing with a Bandaid method. It doesn't stand up. If you are arguing that Watson is a batsman, not an all rounder, and that's why you chose him ahead of Agar, then try explaining why you chose Watson ahead of Bancroft.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Roles in sides are relevant, Don. Watson and Agar clearly play different roles. Also, selection in the national side for the tri-series is very much a separate matter, as I've explained. Most BBL teams of the tournament you'll see online have Watson and/or White in the top four but they're hardly going to be considered for the national team, are they? It's just not the same thing. Honestly, these points seemed pretty obvious to me.
Don Freo
Guest
I know you think Fawad was better. I don't. Agar's T20 contribution was better...hence his selection ahead of Fawad for this current tri-series. As for Watson batting at #4, this is T20. Batting positions are hardly relevant. Few sides get beyond middle order. If you are not counting Watson's bowling, then players like Voges or Bancroft were better.
JamesH
Roar Guru
So essentially the batsmen each player dismissed were generally quality players, and that’s a reason to pick Agar? Not sure about the logic there. As for the Australian side, see my reply above to Don. This is a team of the tournament picked based on performances in particular roles, not an Australian XI. I’d have Agar in the Aussie side every day of the week. I’m not sure when cricinfo became the font of all wisdom (and frankly I’m skeptical of anyone who picks Head at 5, where he basically never bats), but it’s easy to google teams that feature Fawad too. The actual BBL team of the tournament has both Fawad and Agar (the latter as an allrounder in place of Bravo) while the SM Herald has Fawad and no Agar. There isn’t a single correct answer.
JamesH
Roar Guru
No, I said the not outs made his average meaningless as a stat. That is not the same as discounting not outs. Watson played as a no. 3-4 batsman (his side’s key batsman too) who had a trundle occasionally. If you can’t (won’t?) distinguish that from the role Agar played then we’ll never see eye to eye. If I’m picking a T20I side to play for Australia then Agar is clearly a better option (I’d have him over Zampa in the ODI side too), but I’m not. I’m selecting a team of the tournament based on performances in particular roles. Fawad played the role of frontline bowler slightly better than Agar did. That’s why he got picked. This side isn’t playing anyone, it’s simply a recognition of achievement.
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
It is true that Agar was part of a great bowling unit, but he distinguished himself even in that company. I'll see your Maxwell, Denly, Voges, Carey, Head, Wade, Bailey, Hughes, M Short, Wells and Maddinson and lay down McDermott,Christian,Ingram,Lehmann,Dean,Khawaja and Harris,twice.No lower order players there and one less game, oh and two Man of the Match performances I don't see Ahmed in the Australian side,do you? Cricinfo have a very different BBL07 team of the tournament Short Carey Cooper Maxwell Head Turner Christian Agar Archer Khan Stanlake
Don Freo
Guest
Watson and Agar are both all rounders in T20. Watson was unremarkable at every discipline, Agar was renarkable at each. On a par par with the bat, Ag ar is miles ahead with ball and galaxies ahead in the field. No one would ever choose Fawad ahead of Agar in the schoolyard pick in turns test. Fawad concedes too much in the field and doesn't bat. You place all your distinction on a 6 ball differential in strike rate. There would need to be a 24 ball differential to justify Fawad in a side. He is a handicap apart from the 4 overs he has the ball in hand. As for the 'odd assumption'; that you discount not outs is not an assumption, it is in print. You said it.
JamesH
Roar Guru
'Look who his victims were' I looked, and I found Maxwell, Denly, Voges, Carey, Head, Wade, Bailey, Hughes, M Short, Wells and Maddinson. In fact, only one of his victims (Boyce) was batting outside their team's top 5. Thanks for convincing me I got this right ;) Agar was great but he was surrounded by one of the best bowling units in the comp. Fawad was effectively the leader of his side's attack. If I was looking for another allrounder then I would have picked Agar. I picked the four frontline bowlers purely on their bowling because to me, they were the four standout bowlers (together with Bravo).
JamesH
Roar Guru
I don't think not getting out is a negative. What an odd assumption. Agar's average is meaningless because it's not giving you an accurate picture of what his average score per innings is. It is skewed by the not outs. I'm not deriding him for it. I'm an Agar fan. As for the economy vs wickets thing, I'm not going to bother arguing the point because I don't have to. There was almost nothing between Agar's economy (5.74rpo) and Fawad's economy (6.12rpo). Fawad only conceded 1.5 runs per match more than Agar, which is negligible. They were both highly economical. What isn't negligible is that Fawad got a wicket every 20 deliveries, compared to Agar's 26. For context, there were 15 other people sitting between Fawad and Agar on the list of best strike rates, as opposed to just three on the list of best economies. I would have used Agar's batting and fielding as a tiebreaker if there was nothing significant between their bowling. There was, so I didn't need to. If it's any consolation, I did intend to put Agar in the honourable mentions list but ran out of time. Also, I have no idea why you're comparing Agar to Watson. They played utterly different roles within their respective sides. That's like being annoyed that I picked Bravo over Bancroft.
Doctor Rotcod
Guest
Have to agree with Don here.Agar was in the top two or three fielders.His economy was made better because he dried up runs by the top order and his batting was assured. He came in anywhere from three down, so his not outs were support as well as meritorious in their own right.Leave Ahmed out.Look at who his victims were. Agar got better as the BBL went on
Don Freo
Guest
If you have 4 not outs in the Big Bash and score over 120 runs, it is not meaningless. It is outstanding. To be scoring at 135 and not getting out is fantastic. It is really strange how people think not getting out is a negative. As for wickets, the greatest stat for a T20 bowler is economy, not wickets. Batsmen target the finger spinner and Agar could have been mistaken for Dan Vettori with his flight, control and subtle manipulation of pace. He has carried this into the tri-series. You say you chose 2 from the west and that's enough, you had 3 from The Renegades and 2 from the Thunder. No way was Shane Watson as good as Ashton Agar.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Given that I have Turner and Tye in the side, it’s probably fair to say I canvassed the Scorchers, Don. Agar had a ripping season and was in my short list. He just couldn’t quite edge out Rashid or Fawad as a bowler, based on their superior strike rates. Rashid ranked first for economy, Agar second and Fawad sixth, so that doesn’t help to split them. He’s definitely a much better batsman and fielder than they are, although his batting average is meaningless given he had four not outs in 7 innings.
Don Freo
Guest
Ashton Agar? So economical (the most?) and averaged 50 with bat. One of THE best fieldsmen. Look west.