When does a player become a permanent fixture in a national side? When is a player required to earn their keep on recent form rather than past glory?
One player at present is Mitchell Starc.
Starc has benefitted massively from all the attention being focussed on his side’s batting struggles.
So, for solidity, the bowling quartet of Natha Lyon, Starc, Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood will be given a free pass, irrespective of form and even fitness.
All three big quicks struggled during the middle part of 2018, with Starc and Cummins managing back issues, and Starc struggling through ankle and hamstring problems.
As a result, Starc’s form has dropped. After blitzing in Durban against South Africa last March, with match figures of 9-109, he struggled in Port Elizabeth and Cape Town (returning just three wickets for 304).
He missed the final Test, in Johannesburg, and the IPL however, unlike the other two quicks, he did manage to battle through the unrewarding UAE Tests against Pakistan. However, he developed hamstring tightness and was clearly not right in the three ODIs against South Africa.
His overall performance now since Durban is 306 overs for 22 wickets at a strike rate of 83.68 and an average of 46.73. This has moved his career average from 26.7 after the Durban game to 28.92.
Mitchell Starc (Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
His performance against Sri Lanka was once again a liability. He was flattered in the first innings, with two late wickets, while in the second innings the rest of the bowlers combined for 36.5 overs, nine for 59 and Starc got away with 14 overs for 57.
Tim Paine has done the right thing by publicly backing his man. However, this can’t go on.
Hazlewood had been underperforming since the England home Ashes the summer of 2017-18. Despite clearly tiring, his omission for this series only came due to a recurrence of his troublesome back complaint. With his omission in came a breath of fresh air, young Jhye Richardson, who impressed with five for 45 on debut off just 27 overs, with ten maidens – doing all the things as a new-ball bowler that Starc seems incapable of.
In that Durban Test, Starc picked up his first of five first-innings wickets in his second spell, in the 28th over, as he wrapped up three of the last four wickets.
In the second innings, he managed got a pole in the seventh over, then struck again in the 80th over, with three quick wickets to leave the Proteas nine down in darkening conditions.
So even the 9-109 that Starc took, while looking great on paper, did not actually fulfil his role as a new-ball bowler.
My argument is simple: Mitchell Starc is not the bowler for the role that is being asked of him.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
With this Ashes series drawing to a close - and Starc having been dropped, and included for just the 4th test - I'm gladdened to see that the selectors were emboldened to actually select rather than just roll over the bowlers. The irony was by the 4th test we were back to the quartet who had failed the home test against India (where Bumrah in particular completely out bowled the Australians as illustrated by the LBW and Bowled stats Australia's out of form big three and the elusive LBWs). At any rate - the fairest thing for a big fast bowler is to only be picked when fit, healthy and able to reproduce the rhythm required.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Let's keep the powder dry on that just a tad. Look at Hazlewood - had back issues across winter - 4 tests struggled v India and out with back issues again. Starc has struggled now for the last 2 years due to a series of leg/ankle issues. He's now managed to get 'up' for one largely meaningless test (SL were never going to level the series 1-1) against a very week foe. It's a shame he wasn't able to get 'up' for any of the 4 tests against India (because even at 2-1 going to Sydney there was a chance to level the series. So - let's see if Starc can back this up - is this a return to fitness and form? Or is it one out of the blue? And if it is a return to fitness and form then clearly he was performing (vs India) with sub standard output whilst lacking in fitness and form - - - in which case he owes us!!!
Tahlil
Roar Rookie
Look against India he wasn't even swinging the ball. But against SL he did swing the ball and got a 10 wkt haul... He is back mate. He is back
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Ah gee the problem with Starc.....he's got an early wicket the over before - ball still pretty new - and he should be running in full of steam ready for the next breakthrough - and he delivers this drivel. This is why Starc is so frustrating - his inability to bowl test cricket standard even most of the time. Yep - he can pull out the odd ripping ball - and even in this brace of 6 he beat the bat once but 4 of the rest were no threat and the other too straight and played through mid-wicket without risk. (Starc's 6th over - went for 1 run.....but.....): 1. Starc to Chandimal, no run, full outside off, left alone 2. Starc to Chandimal, 1 run, back of a length, straight, worked into midwicket 3. Starc to Thirimanne, no run, beats the outside edge as he aims to play a forcing back foot drive against a short-of-a-length delivery 4. Starc to Thirimanne, no run, that's a bit wayward, a short delivery which is pushed a long way down the leg side 5. Starc to Thirimanne, no run, fuller, very wide outside off, carries low through to Paine 6. Starc to Thirimanne, no run, very full, wide outside off, passes the batsman as a full toss and he misses the drive But - this Sri Lankan outfit is so ordinary that not only does Starc get away with it - he's gone and snagged himself another wicket the next over. The problem is against India it wasn't good enough but against these guys it is. That's the dilemma.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Tahlil Perhaps I'm a harsh judge. Starc opening spell with the new ball was 4 overs for 22. When finally he came back into the attack on Sat evening he picked up Chandimal with a very short ball that he really should've left alone. Then on Sunday the captain even lost faith in him and when Lyon came on it was expected a double change but instead Richardson was swapped ends and Starc still held back. The hit wicket was very, very lucky and as it turned out the returning Karunuratne got loose outside off and then 2 of the bunniest of tail end dismissals inflated his numbers. What's it all mean? Well - his average pace was up a tad so that IS a good sign - perhaps, perhaps he is starting to regain some rhythm after an injury interrupted last 2 years. Doesn't that just reinforce how much he has underperformed? And so you reckon a 5 fer against this super weakened Sri Lankan line up is really something to get super excited about?? There's is a very fine paper veneer over the massive cracks in the wall. THE BEST thing NOW is that Starc has opened up this morning and cleaned up Karunaratne, rattling the stumps with more of a length ball rather than the over reliance in the first innings on trying to knock the helmets off a team clearly ill-equipped for the task (not very friendly tactics by the Australians - but whatever it takes). So - if he now has some rhythm returning and a bit of confidence - then fine - he's back in the frame.
Tahlil
Roar Rookie
Well Starc has got a fifer now.. Hope u got your answer. That's y he is important to the team. His ability to knock the opposition anytime in a game makes him what he is. Still wanna drop him mate??
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
MattH: “So how does your Starc tailender narrative stack up when you realise that his wickets are split almost perfectly between 1-3, 4-7 and 8-11?” It stacks up easily. What makes you think that either, a) It should be an even distribution? Especially when it’s a 3, 3, 4 distribution or b) everybody’s distribution should be “almost perfectly” split? I posted something the other day showing the above distribution of half a dozen random Oz quicks. Starc’s %age of rabbits was comfortably the highest. And I can’t see the relevance of this s/r line of argument anyway. As I keep stating; the side with the lowest bowling average will beat the side with the better s/r Every Single Time.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Warner, Oh my goodness I'm having a shocker. That was supposed to be Warne obviously.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Yes I had a crisis of confidence on spelling Thomson, since it's mostly Thommo.. Oh well I had a 50/50 shot. So how does your Starc tailender narrative stack up when you realise that his wickets are split almost perfectly between 1-3, 4-7 and 8-11? You need a mix of bowlers. If you can;t take wickets the scoring rate increases anyway as the batsmen are set. By your logic we should never play a spinner. Lyon averages 32. Even Warner averaged over 25.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Nope. S/r is the least important of the key statistics. You can guess that by the simple fact that the side wot scores the most runs, wins. Crikey! It doesn’t even matter if they’ve lost more wickets. And one other thing… One could posit that Starc’s s/r is ‘artificially’ lowered by his habit of feasting on rabbits. Iirc, he was 10 %age points higher than the aforementioned “Thompson”, which I assume was meant to be JR *Thomson*.
Matt H
Roar Guru
And it's only in stick cricket that a bowler with an average of 66 has a strike rate of 12. Good work taking it to the absurd extreme. You compared this to an average of 30 with a strike rate of 60 - i.e. Siddle. You should have been comparing to an economy rate of zero and a strike rate of infinity, i.e. bowls 100% maidens but never takes a wicket. Obviously all bowlers are between these two extremes.
Matt H
Roar Guru
You need a mix and can't have only one type. The good attacks have both. There is room for McGrath and Thompson in the pantheon. Strike is massively important. If you have an excellent economy rate but poor strike rate the batsmen are not facing any threat if they are patient.
Ken
Roar Rookie
Neither of them.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Matt H sez: “Well not have the best strike rate for an Australian bowler with 200+ wickets. That won’t get you dropped.” Sigh. Strike rate again? So, you’d rather have a bowler who takes a wicket every two overs but with an average of 66.0 ahead of some trundler who takes a wicket every ten overs but averages 30? Guess which one is going to be the winner there.
Peter Warrington
Guest
Not only was McGrath's average better than Lillee's (in a long career across all test countries and conditions) - so was his strike rate.
Peter Warrington
Guest
hopefully neither
Matt H
Roar Guru
What does Mitchell Starc have to do to be dropped? Well not have the best strike rate for an Australian bowler with 200+ wickets. That won't get you dropped. Starc is a strike rate bowler, average is pretty irrelevant. He is like Thommo, Lee, Johnson. Line and length bowlers often have better averages but worse strike rates - McGrath, Hazlewood, Gillespie. It's a rare bowler that has both - Lillee. And can we please wait to anoint Jhye Richardson as the second coming until he's actually bowled in a daytime test with a red ball on a non-Gabba pitch? I hope he nails it this weekend, but more evidence is needed before discarding Starc.
bobbo7
Guest
Fair play, I was confident but India too good and NZ have been bloody useless. That said, I still think we're a fair chance at the WC
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Right. So it wasn’t a “road” for the whole Test. Only 40% of it. Going once, going twice… Your reasons for Starc’s poor Indian series were; 1. It wasn’t really poor. He did ok, but only if you exclude an entire Test because he didn’t do well there. Novel. Can the Starxits then exclude Perth? A pitch officially rated as “poor” due to the excessive assistance it provided the bowlers. Seems fair to me. What about Briz? Can we exclude that? He did badly there too so obviously the pitch was a “road”. 2. The poor boy bowled over 100 overs, excluding Melb of course, often in “searing heat”. Like all the other bowlers did. And they did it better. Perhaps he should consider getting them out quicker? Like most of the others did. 3. He’s helping the other bowlers; “…he and the rest of the bowling unit are getting sides out and leaving us in a position where we can win…”. Tremendous! Let’s keep an underperformer because “…he and the rest of the bowling unit…”. Seriously? I’d love to see you as a selector. But only if I was an opposition player. And then you say that the OP has; “…decided Starc should be dropped” because of the Indian series. This is just plain wrong. The OP, and us other Starxits, have *clearly* stated that Starc’s poor bowling since Sandpapergate (17inn) is the reason he should be punted. (Iirc, his average since that disgrace is 47ish). Again, it’s such a noticeably different media response when a NSW player is the subject of being punted. Contrast the reactions between Starc and the Marshes. It’s Newton’s Third…
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Tahlil Well - yes and no. Starc WAS near best in the world in 2015 and 2016. Since then, with repeated leg related injury issues - his star has fallen to the extent now that head to head on exposed form even of 17 tests from 2017 to now, he just doesn't stack up to be the new ball pace spearhead. You wouldn't be dropping him after just 1 or 2 tests. It's now 9 tests since he took his 9 fer the match against RSA at Durban. Since then his best return is a couple of 3 fers. If 5 fer is the equivalent of a 100 - - well, in his last 9 tests he's managed little better than a 60 odd. We're now going to see how long Khawaja lasts on this basis!!