After a difficult series with India, a series against Sri Lanka and a coming Ashes series, there is a wealth of articles providing guidance for our troubled and apparently confused selectors.
And I’m not suggesting that they don’t need help, so I’m going to throw my two cents in.
But how to help? Instead of just making specific suggestions, I want to look at the preferred profile of an ultimate 13 and then we can look at who we have to fill those roles. I thank Guest ‘Dart’ for assisting with this idea by providing an interesting description of the skills particular roles require. And there is a reason why this is the ultimate 13 and not just 11.
So what is the make-up of the ultimate squad? First, you need a starting 11 made up of six batters, five bowlers and a keeper. No mistake with my maths – 6 people to carry the batting, 1 to meet wicket-keeping duties and 5 bowlers to get wickets.
And to fit that into 11 is simple, one person does two jobs (and it can be the keeper). And for goodness sake, you should have five bowlers.
The whole premise of only needing 4 bowlers is flawed and based on squads like the West Indies at their peak or Australia when they had Glenn McGrath and Shane Warne, or weak opposition.
It’s a source of personal angst seeing Ashes team suggestions based around six specialist batsmen.
Let me remind you all, winning cricket matches is not based on the number of runs, it is based on getting 20 wickets. Batsmen rarely get bulk wickets, but a tail can add important runs.
500 to 600 runs will win you a test match with the right attack and our recent loss to India was as much to do with bowling failures as batting.
We made enough runs to win the series, but we didn’t take enough wickets. Remember what the Windies would say? Doesn’t matter how many runs you get, we’ll get you all out for less. And Richards or someone was there to take the role of the fifth bowler.
Oh yes, there is always the strategy of making a million runs in the first innings, batting the opposition out of the game and letting scoreboard pressure take wickets for you.
Winning by an innings or so, we did that a lot during the Mark Taylor, Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke years.
(Photo by Ryan Pierse – CA/Cricket Australia/Getty Images)
Tell me, we won by an innings against Sri Lanka in Brisbane and heavily again in Canberra, did you enjoy that game more than the closer battle against India in Perth? Huge defeats in Test cricket are detrimental to the enjoyment of the sport, and personally, I would prefer games where we go around twice scoring around 300 or 350 an innings.
I watched a lot of cricket during our dominant years of the Taylor – Clarke periods and I can assure you, we really didn’t need the six batsmen to win the tests we did.
In fact, I can only think of one test – where Gilchrist and Langer saved our bacon against Pakistan in Hobart – that having the extra batsmen was an obvious winner.
I did see, however, too many games to mention or think of a specific example that we lost or petered out to a mild draw where the extra bowler would have made a definitive difference.
It’s not uncommon for teams to go into tests with only four bowlers and to encounter an injury or one bowler to be out of sorts or way off form and you end up putting the load onto just 3 bowlers and some part-timers.
I also recall a lot of commentary about Shane Warne (and a few others) having an excessive bowling load and adversely affecting career longevity.
We could have used the extra bowler and Adam Gilchrist could have played the all-rounder role without adversely affecting the team’s success. Perhaps Mitchell Starc’s recent results would have been different with another bowler to help carry the load.
To further illustrate my point, several years ago, England toured in Australia and got thoroughly smashed.
In fact, they only won one test. The only game they won was the only game they went into with 5 bowlers – using Phillip De Freitas as an allrounder in the No.6 spot. I am constantly frustrated when we fill a line-up of six batsmen – most of whom don’t outscore their bowling brothers and take no wickets.
Unless the pitch is a minefield you don’t need the sixth batsman. Bowlers can make runs with more consistency than batters take wickets. Our past selection policies have a lot to answer for.
The Bottom line is that a positive and aggressive line up is designed to take 20 wickets and score enough runs to outscore the opposition over two innings. Six batsmen, five bowlers and a keeper, 12 roles covered by 11 people.
But this is a best XIII, so who are the two extras? Well, your ‘11’ should really start as a 12 with 6 bowlers. A balanced attack should have 4 quicks and 2 spinners (1 leggie, 1 offie for variety).
Based on the pre-game assessment of the pitch, the decision is made to go in with one spinner and four four quicks or a two/three mix with the odd man out being 12th man.
Your 13th man is a batter – in the rare case the pitch is an absolute minefield, then you might go in with the extra batsman.
The best ‘pace’ quartet incorporates swing (Terry Alderman and Damien Flemming, for example), seam, line and length (McGrath) and sheer pace (Brett Lee) with both left and right arm bowlers to cover all bases and situations that arise in a game.
You can also look to include a workhorse-type bowler, thus being able to use impact bowlers in short bursts.
Of course – we are talking ideal here and you don’t always have the right people at hand.
The team
The openers
Ideally a left and right combination, one aggressive and one steady. Think Michael Slater and Mark Taylor, and whilst they were like-handed, Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer, David Warner and Chris Rogers, David Boon and Geoff Marsh were all good pairings.
Currently, we have Joe Burns, Marcus Harris, David Warner and possibly Usman Khawaja to consider. Matt Renshaw needs a few runs and maybe Kurtis Patterson would best be used elsewhere. Is there another serious right-hand option around?
(AP Photo/Themba Hadebe, File)
Number three
A specialist position and he needs to be able to be in charge. Confident and not put out if a wicket falls early, can rebuild and be steady if needed.
Also needs to be able to dominate and exert pressure at the right time, increasing scoring rates without necessarily being the team’s best bat.
Think Ricky Ponting and Ian Chappell, while Boon did it well for a while. Currentlym Khawaja has the spot and while I wouldn’t be in a hurry to toss him, regardless of a lean trot, I would give serious consideration to moving Warner into the role.
He has the perfect profile for a number three. I really wouldn’t be considering Marnus Labuschagne in that spot and I think his days are numbered unless he can fill in a spot as the six and be an additional bowler – providing variety to Lyon.
Middle order (Number four and five)
A left-right mix is helpful as it might keep opposition bowlers on their toes.
The best batsman in the team is here and these guys need to contribute the bulk of runs. Think Steve Waugh, Clarke, and Greg Chappell. Our options at the moment are Travis Head, Patterson, the returning Smith and Peter Handscomb in the wings.
Number six
Another specialist role for someone with varied talents, not unlike the first drop.
In this spot, you want a batsman who can be steady and work with the tail if the top five haven’t scored enough, or someone who can accelerate and take advantage of a good beginning if that is the case.
Think Alan Border and Steve Waugh (both of whom could bowl). This can be a tough spot to fill as, if you don’t have a bowler up the order (like Shane Watson), you now need to be thinking of your keeper and bowling group.
If you have a fantastic four bowlers and are putting a batter here, it’s not a bad spot to blood a newbie (Will Pucovski – if he gets himself sorted out).
We really don’t have an ideal person for this spot at the moment, which is a big reason the selectors stuck so long with Mitch Marsh; at his best, he is the ideal number six.
He has the bowling to support the pace bowlers – strong and able to bowl long fast spells accurately – taking wickets along the way. On top of this, he is capable of making a serious contribution with the bat, both batting long and dominating where required.
The obvious issue is, after many opportunities and for whatever reason, he hasn’t delivered and probably isn’t in future contention.
At the moment, our allrounder options are Marcus Stoinis (needs to improve bowling), Glenn Maxwell (good luck), Tim Paine (has a test batting average of 35), Matthew Wade (if Paine is out), Pat Cummins (wouldn’t be my choice) or Labuschagne (if he improves his bowling significantly).
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
Bowlers who can bat like Michael Neser, Chris Tremain (who has a first class 100), Pattinson et al should look at this hole in the Australian team and make a goal to fill it.
Number seven-eleven
This is the bowling and keeper group.
These are simply ordered according to batting ability. With our bowling group, looking at the desired skill sets above, we currently have a great group, and one that’s hard to improve on.
Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Pat Cummins fill the mix of pace, swing and seam, as well as left and right. I would include Jhye Richardson to the group for his swing and pace mix and keep Starc for the left hand pace variation (I don’t see any other quality left hand options) as well as impact value, bowling him for short spells. Others in consideration are Tremain, Peter Siddle, Jackson Bird, Scott Boland and James Pattinson (if fit).
For spinning options to partner Lyon, I see few decent options. Maxwell needs to bring his spinners to test level and Lloyd Pope has a little way to go, though I’d be tempted to take him to England, or at least make him a permanent part of the secpnd XI games.
The answer =is for Steve Smith to secure his return by working on his leg-spinning and take the role of fifth bowler – he won’t have captaincy issues on his mind for a while, if ever.
Ashes 1st test and Tour Squad
Openers: Warner,Harris,Khawaja,Burns
Number three: Khawaja,Warner
Middle order: Smith (also as fifth bowler),Head,Patterson
Number six: Tim Paine (wk)
Bowlers: Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins, Richardson, Lyon (if Smith bowling, 1 is 12th man, Paine plays at seven), Tremain, Siddle, Pope, Wade
Alternatives: Stoinis, Maxwell, Handscomb
Dart
Guest
Wow, a citation! Haha, I'll take that! It is an interesting suggestion to play five bowlers. Shield sides have done it and I do think we are sometimes too formulaic with the suggestion that you need six bats who can average 40+. Is a batsman who only averages 35, but chips in a wicket each match (as well as reducing the workload on the other bowlers), better value for a side? It is a legitimate question that should be asked. I argued against having a specialist all-rounder in the team, with no.6 being an 'apprentice' role for the next big thing. Ponting and Clarke served apprenticeships at no.6. I did advocate for people in the top five who could roll the arm over - people like Smith and Maxwell - which allows for a prodigy to be picked at 6. The only real option we have to play that genuine all-rounder role - so far as I can see - is Mitchell Marsh. The question that needs to be asked is this - are we prepared to pick someone who will probably only average in the 30s with the bat to have a fifth genuine wicket-taking option with the ball? If Pattinson and Cummins were in the XI (who are both capable of averaging nearly 30), does this boost Marsh's cause? What happens when Marsh finishes the Shield season strongly? Adds to his 10 first class centuries. Captains the Australia A side to England. Scores runs in English conditions. I wouldn't be surprised to see him during the Ashes at all.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
"Genuine test quality allrounders who can truly fill both roles are as rare as hens teeth." Very true. If you define a genuine all rounder as one who is so good at each role that he would be selected for either role alone, then, of the top of my head, I can only think of three since WWI to have played for Australia: Jack Gregory; Keith Miller; and Adam Gilchrist. Three in 100 years of cricket.
Ace
Roar Rookie
sort of a bizarre selection but...
The Bush
Roar Guru
Until Sobers Jnr turns up, I’ll take six batsmen and four bowlers any day of the week. South Africa are unique in having unearthed them. The reality is they’re not needed. The great sides of recent history, Windies, Aus, Eng circa 2011 (unless you counted Collingwood, and I didn’t) haven’t needed them. It has been to Australia’s detriment that we’ve wasted so many tests on bits and pieces cricketers hoping to find an all rounder. Who knows what sort of batsmen we missed out on due to this obsession.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
You are correct, true quality/genuine all-rounders are exceptionally rare. In all the history of cricket over all the countries there is only a handful. And why?? Possibly because aren’t appreciated or understood or the reward isn’t there because we seem to be happy with 6-1-4 formula. Why develop your second skill if you’re are getting by on one? Our recent all-rounders have been treated abysmally. Watson had the goods, but was forever treated like a poor man’s version of Kallis. Bounced around the batting order and usually used irregularly as a bowler. Greg Matthews, the only guy (on my stat search) to get the shield 5000/300 and 6000/400 doubles as well as the season 500/50 twice. With a test batting average as good as Mark Waugh he was relegated to #7 and dropped (when we were beating the Windies in 1993 and leading the series) for not producing required bowling figures only for Australia to lose the next test in Adelaide and the series. Gilchrist batting #6… And yes – Mitch Marsh didn’t fulfill his potential – I wonder how much of that was due to mishandling and expectation. We, (Australia) really don’t know how to bring along an all-rounder, unless they are a Kallis or Sobers they are up against it. We stop settling for 6-1-4 and start looking for 6-5-1 and we’ll get it. South Africa produces quality all-rounders at a great rate. De Villiers* {keeper/rounder}, Pollack, Proctor*, Tony Greig (though he played for England), Elliott (just finished career for NZ), Brian McMillan*, Eddie Barlow, Philander (though his batting returns are too low ATM) Clive Rice*, Hansie, Klusener (though not one of the best) and Kallis* (possibly the best ever). [* denotes that they were arguably the best all-rounder in the world at one point]. They know how to treat/develop people of multiple skills and how to value them. {supporting data;- https://www.theroar.com.au/2012/11/14/a-bakers-dozen-the-best-south-african-all-rounders-ever/}
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
We don't have an ingrained reliance on only four bowlers. We've had a constant search for a player who could be that fifth bowler. But they simply haven't existed, because, in reality, such a player is incredibly rare. So as a result, the four main bowlers, with a couple of part-time trundlers among the batsmen to roll out a few overs leading up to the second new-ball is what's available.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
The issue with an allrounder though, is simply that one needs to exist. They are rare. As some stats have shown, Paine actually has the second best test batting average all time for an Australian keeper, only behind Gilly. Gilly’s 47 average is that far ahead of everyone else it’s not funny. Nobody else has come close. We are struggling to find any batsmen who could come close to averaging 47 in test cricket, let alone also be a top-flight keeper at the same time. Same on the batting/bowling allrounder. There aren’t many Kallis / Sobers types in test cricket history. They are a very rare breed. And the more professional the game becomes, the harder it is to be able to get to that level with both bat and ball. So we have bowlers who can hold the bat, like Cummins, and batsmen who can roll a few overs out, like Smith, Head, Labuschagne. But “genuine” allrounders don’t come around too often. Mitch Marsh averages 31 with the bat in first class cricket. To expect him to be a genuine top-6 test batsman is crazy.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Genuine test quality allrounders who can truly fill both roles are as rare as hens teeth. In the history of test cricket there have really only been a relatively small number you would call that sort of genuine allrounder. While you go on and on about matches being won where the sixth batsman's runs weren't particularly needed, there are just as many situations where the 5th bowler hardly bowls, and just having someone who can send down a few overs, like Head, Smith, Labuschagne quality, is really all you need. Unless the fifth bowler is of good enough quality to be a continual wicket threat and keep the pressure on as much as the four main bowlers, then they aren't going to be bowled that much, as you can't afford to have a bowler in the team who just lets the pressure off whenever they come on. So it's no use saying that we need to have a quality allrounder in the side, when there simply isn't one. On the occasions where such an allrounder comes along, that can greatly benefit the balance of the side, but you can't just turn someone into that. Either they exist or they don't. And most of the time they don't.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Quite true my interestingly named friend... And given Mitch Marsh didn't fill the spot we are indeed quite short on anything close to a genuine all-rounder at present. But that doesn't mean that the search stops or that we rust onto the 6-1-4 formula (and that you named the formula 'conventional' is my point - it shouldn't be the convention). Someone should be having a chat in Stoinis' ear about the role he could play. Someone (actually almost everyone already is) should be whispering into selectors ears about the role Maxwell could play. If Paine starts getting runs like Wade has.... 6-5-1 is my rally cry, hoorah!
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
:) 'Bowling' and 'batting' semi all-rounders are usually not desirable in the test arena. I'm not advocating for the trundler unless there is a mission. During the time of West Indian domination Viv Richards bowled a fair bit and his wicket taking prowess was limited. His role, however, (which he performed with distinction) was to keep things tight while pace bowlers rested. I rather seek to inform the masses that our ingrained reliance on only 4 bowlers is flawed and we should always be looking at alternatives. :)
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
No argument with that as I'm not calling a 5th bowler someone who bowls on occasions. We would want to go in with 5 genuine wicket takers, so we would need one of them to also deliver runs reliably as a batsman ie. not Cummins (yet or ever.. maybe). We don't have one at the moment (frustrating that Mitch Marsh couldn't deliver - he 'potentially' fitted the role). Unless we had a 'keeper that could wield the willow with success. I wouldn't be suggesting to replace Paine with Wade, but if their batting form was reversed, no reason Paine couldn't go in at 6 - after all - some people are calling for Wade to be considered for a batting spot. And yes, Gilchrist was devastating at #7. And we didn't need him batting that deep to still win the games we did. Invariably, many of the matches we played around the time were similar to our recent Sri-Lankan bashing. We won with ease (and while I did enjoy them, I'd rather see more games like the Perth win), didn't need the batting load and yet there were times where our bowlers were off colour, or in-game injury, or lacking in variety where an extra bowler would have been a peach. I ran some numbers on our premier middle order batsmen of the age, Ponting, Waughs, Clarke - even Smith and Border to get a spread. Their ratio of innings to matches ranged around the 1.6 - 1.7 mark (similar - Kholi, Clive Lloyd). They batted a second time 60/70% of the games they were in. Gilchrist batted second innings around 40% of tests. The only comparable figure was Jeffrey Dujon during Windies domination and his batting average is 31 compared to Gilchrist 49. My little soap box here is in response to what appears a growing reliance on 6 batters to save or devastate. Reading many comments over the past few weeks the concept of an all-rounder, even wicket-keeping one seems to be non-existent. Have 5 specialist bats then look for the best all-rounder we can find. There might not be one at the moment, but we need to be open-minded. :)
El Loco
Roar Rookie
Aren't you mostly acknowledging that, in the absence of a genuine all-rounder, the conventional 6-1-4 is the right balance?
Paul
Roar Guru
DP, the selectors DID try to develop that 5th bowler strategy through their insistence on playing all-rounders and vainly trying to make a Gilchrist out of guys who were never going to be close to his standard. The other issue is player depth. Think back to those great teams under Taylor, Waugh and Ponting in particular - nearly every guy in the top 7 averaged in the 40's and the blokes replacing them were the same. Ditto with the bowlers; all, including replacements, were high quality players. Now, we're rebuilding so the talent pool is looking a little empty, but will fill up again once we get a settled side, in which case we would be silly not to try a 5th bowler if conditions suited and the batting team was good enough to cover the loss of one bat.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
Australias constant struggling on the subcontinent/UAE has been "highlighted" by the obsession of "bowling" all rounders over proper batsmen. My all time favourite is S Marsh Warner Smith Voges Henriques M Marsh
Jero
Roar Rookie
Australia play two domestic Tests against Pakistan in November/December later this year, then three against New Zealand, followed by two away Tests in Bangladesh in February 2020. I’m confident that a 5th bowler of some kind will be a strong selection priority in each of them, given the conditions. Perhaps sooner, depending on how the Ashes play out. Maxwell, Labuschagne and Stoinis need to make every post a winner between now and then, you would think. I reckon Stoinis is the probable frontrunner. They’ll want to see what he’s got in our conditions. As do I. If he can move the ball in English conditions that would help his cause, but I have no idea about that. If we win without him, he won’t get in under any circumstances, and if we’re behind in the series a specialist batsman will come in to replace whoever bombs out. He’s got the “all rounder” tag and I don’t fancy his chances in a two horse race against say Burns, Harris or Patterson if batting is the main selection criterion on tour. Maybe Maxwell can extend his specialist subcontinent “filler” Test career in Bangladesh!
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
My memory is probably a bit more biased, I developed this attitude during the days of being top dog where we were smashing teams all round the world, usually batting big and not needing much of a second innings contribution. While I can't nominate precise games - the times when we didn't bat big seemed to match poorer bowling performances and I often thought we could have been more successful (overall) with Gilchrist batting 6 and an extra bowler. Gilchrist moved on but I was sorry we missed an opportunity to develop that strategy.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Good points, too much of the same defeats the value of variety. Though I suppose I saw Hazlewood as more the line/length seamer and (based on comments and recent performance) Richardson being able to get more swing. A mix of;- Starc, McGrath, Flemming, Lee/Johnson would give the ultimate variety of swing, seam, pace, left/right. Thus if the movement is less you have a swing bowler to rely on. If nothing in the air off wicket you have pace and aggro as well as right/left options. Throw in spinners Lyon and Warne and you have an ideal bowling squad. Dreams, yes, and one has to pick from the cards available but the ideal should always be the goal.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
And you are absolutely correct. There is no precise model and lacking a strong, authentic all-rounder at present doesn't help my argument, acknowledged. I maintain a strong belief that the ideal situation is one where we have one of the 6 main batsmen doubling up with a bowling role or keeper and we should be actively looking for this. I just think people fall into the 6/4 ratio too quickly and I got a chance to vent some frustration. Thanks for reading.
Matt H
Roar Guru
If you are advocating taking in 5 top line bowlers that's fine, but if you think for a minute that Steve Smith is capable of being one of them then really you are picking your six batsman and four bowlers. Smith is a part timer at best, like Labuschagne, Head, or in the old days Blewett, Mark Waugh, Doug Walters or Greg Chappell. So are you really saying you want some of our bats to be able to roll the arm over? Is that what you mean by 5th bowler? There is a reason that throughout history many teams have played 6 bats a keeper and 4 bowlers. They have only regularly played a 5th bowler when there are terribly flat pitches or when they actually have a top line all rounder. And they have been rare throughout the ages. Ideally you have that all rounder and get your five bowlers, but if you don't have it, you don't sacrifice batting to get it. The best sides have picked a top 6 and gone from there. There was a reason Australia used that formula during their best period. It works. And having Gilchrist at 7 was devastating for tiring opponents. West Indies were the same - 6 bats and one or two of them could bowl some holding overs. Better to have your six bats but have one or two of them be capable holding bowlers - Head, Maxwell, Labuschagne can all take this role. Smith barely, he bowls too many four balls.
Rob
Guest
There was many reports that Smith had been bowling a lot more before his injury so it wouldn't be surprise to see him bowl a lot more.