The common consensus among the cricket world is that this edition of the World Cup is one of the most evenly balanced of all time.
The skill level across the board is phenomenal. And while no team is perfect, Australia does have a significant weakness that could be exposed during the tournament.
Our batting line-up has a combined strike rate that is well under the best teams in the world.
It seems odd even imagining that an Australian limited-overs side might have a slouchy run rate.
We’ve been blessed with free-scoring players like Matthew Hayden, Adam Gilchrist, Ricky Ponting and Andrew Symonds to name a few, regularly outscoring opposing teams.
But the 2019 style of ODI cricket is a completely different beast, especially on hard and bouncy wickets.
Our current squad relies too much on David Warner and Glenn Maxwell to score at more than a run a ball and lift us to those big totals when required.
(Photo by Mark Nolan/Getty Images)
Let’s compare the career averages and strike rates of the Aussie top seven to the England top seven.
- David Warner 43 @ 97
- Aaron Finch 39 @ 88
- Usman Khawaja 44 @ 83
- Steve Smith 42 @ 86
- Marcus Stoinis 39 @ 93
- Glenn Maxwell 33 @ 122
- Alex Carey 31 @ 84
Their combined average strike rate is 93.
These are England’s numbers, on the other hand.
- Jason Roy 38 @ 105
- Jonny Bairstow 46 @ 105
- Joe Root 50 @ 87
- Eoin Morgan 39 @ 90
- Ben Stokes 36 @ 94
- Jos Buttler 41 @ 118
- Moeen Ali 26 @ 104
The hosts’ average strike rate is more than 100.
The batting averages are relatively similar across the board, while the strike rate is a significant seven per cent difference.
This might not seem like much but when you get even nerdier with the figures, this represents 21 fewer runs across a 50-over innings.
Sure, England have not been setting the world on fire lately, but remember that they have dominated the ODI format since 2015, winning the highest percentage of any team in the world.
They’ve also made multiple scores over 400 and set a new world record of 481 in the process.
How have they achieved all this and taken the game to new heights?
Despite this, Australia has a very competitive team that will go deep into the tournament and can win against anyone.
If there’s an area of concern, though, it’s this.
Maybe we are still a little old-school in our intent while the game has changed forever. It’s naive to think exactly the same blueprint for 2015 works for 2019.
Seeing players like Khawaja scoring nowhere near a run a ball in the warm-up games against New Zealand further raises these concerns and Maxwell is the one that has to take the big risks. Yet when he fails, he is selfish.
These accumulators might balance out their strike rate when they score big, but failing early means more pressure on the team with a run rate deficit.
Are we missing a D’Arcy Short, Chris Lynn, Ben McDermott or Ashton Turner in the line-up who can play those freak innings that skyrocket a team total? Maybe.
Let’s hope the boys play with positive intent from the get-go and take it to the opposition in those big-scoring games that are inevitable throughout the tournament.
We’ll have no other choice.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Matt, I apologise if you took offence to any of my remarks. I was merely saying Australian cricket has advanced, England ODI cricket has gone in a totally different and highly risky direction and the only way to really judge between the two is to have another World Cup tournament. I'm more than happy to acknowledge that recent England win as an excellent victory, but I still have question marks. The ball moved all over the place in the first 6 or 8 overs and Pakistan did well to only be two down. It hardly moved a millimeter after that, so I wonder how Bairstow would have gone betting first? I also looked through the England figures and they've gone from very respectable early on when the ball was moving,to completely embarrassing when it wasn't. This is against a side clearly below it's best. The only way we're going to know whether the "England method" is truly a better way of playing 50 over cricket is to see what happens in the next couple of months. I think England are false favourites and their bowling & fielding will be found out in a big way. I'm equally sure if the Aussies team performs to it's best, sides will struggle to post the massive totals we've seen a few times or Australia will make lesser scores and defend them.
Matt Sterne
Roar Rookie
England wins another ODI and chases down a score that only 5 teams in history have been able to do yet they did it with 5 overs to spare... hmmm. You gotta admire it!
Tonka Goldman
Roar Rookie
There is a Pakistani player playing against England tonight. His name is Fakhar Zaman. He only lasted 4 balls. One can only imagine what Billy Birmingham would do with that information.
Tonka Goldman
Roar Rookie
If teams can get Finch, Warner and Smith out then how are either Marsh and Khawaja going to save the day? Carey to open with Finch, Maxwell to bat at number 3 and Warner at 6. No Marsh, No Khawaja. Warner vs the quicks in the final 5 overs is only way to 400+ AshTurner and Ben McDermott should be in the Squad. Not Marsh and Khawaja.
Matt Sterne
Roar Rookie
Hey Paul, simply because I couldn’t be bothered. Wouldn’t look too much into it apart from the small comparison data which is nerdy enough. Yes it doesn’t take everything into context. There’s all sorts of variables. But it bothered me seeing these repeat scores from players like Khawaja well under a run a ball and pondering how our strike rates actually compare when you put them on paper. Would love to see them against India/NZ/SA etc or even per region breakdown but that’s all for another argument. Simple comparison with the no.1 team in the world to ponder over. Not ashamed to say England have been impressive and firepower is a weapon. Forget their last wobble or two, we were abysmal before the 2015 World Cup... 5-0 Whitewash loss against SA ring a bell? Even we had some shockers at the height of our powers. That’s cricket... Will still be backing the Aussies all the way no matter what and believe we have a very very well rounded side. Cheers
Paul
Roar Guru
When I read articles like this, I wonder why the author only compares half the respective teams and only compares the batting part of each team? I don't understand how bowling can be left out of any equation, nor do I get why things like batting collapses which England are become very good at, are largely ignored? I think Matt decided on a theme at the start of this piece then pulled together numbers that supported that - Australia cricket has not progressed. Perhaps it might be better to see if England cricket has really progressed when they've staked every thing on an all or nothing approach with the bat. Great for winning 5 games series, bit so good for a knockout tournament.
Peter Warrington
Guest
Lynn has played.a career total of 4 Odis and a FC average of 43.
Ben
Guest
Exactly my thoughts Josh, Ronan won't like that you rebuttaled his rather Ad hominem/strawman argument with just pure logic and a basic grasp of statistics.
Josh H
Roar Rookie
Exactly mate, that 257 is just too much of an anomaly to include unfortunately. Great innings, but simply uncharacteristic of the rest of the dataset.
JayG
Roar Rookie
I agree with you Josh H. One of the basics of statistical analysis is to eliminate the outliers and this definitely seems like one. Not taking anything away from Short, but to judge how he is likely to perform "on average", including this outlier will bias the results.
graham
Guest
would be cool to see strike rates of England, India and Australia's strike rate in the sub continent for comparison
Josh H
Roar Rookie
You make an interesting point, Ronan. My argument is grounded in the fact that Short's 257 is a complete anomaly in comparison to the rest of his List A innings. I elaborated on that point in my original comment and I will do so again. I don't wish to degrade the knock, but Short has never played another innings like that 257. He only has one other List A century to his name, 119* in the previous season. Plus, that 257 innings alone constituted 64% of his entire tally for the 18/19 season, which he only hit one other 50. With that in mind, I don't see how Short's List A average of 45 which Matt mentioned is that much of an accurate measure. Do you see what I mean? I don't think you can suggest Short has been the most outstanding batsman in the One-Day Cup "without question" either. In the 2018/19 competition he was excellent, I agree. But in 2017/18? He sits atop the runscoring charts at a lofty 37th. Is that due to lack of opportunities? Maybe. Certainly doesn't flatter your claim about him being the most outstanding batsman that season though.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Australia have played a lot of their ODI's in recent years in conditions that haven't been conducive to really big scores. England have not only beefed up their team but instructed groundstaff to make absolute roads where possible for home ODI's and that combined with smaller grounds means more big scores. So I don't know that it's really comparing like for like necessarily.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"D’Arcy Short’s average is inflated by the one 257 he scored last year, so his average is a number that definitely lies. " That's a weird argument. You want to penalise a player for constructing the most destructive one-day innings ever played in Australian domestic cricket? I would argue that, if you really need to deconstruct Short's List A record, a far more relevant way to deconstruct Short's List A record would be to consider how he has fared since he's started playing as a batsman, batting in the top order, rather than as an all-rounder batting at 6/7 which is how he started his List A career. Short's List A record: Batting in top four - 811 runs at 51 Batting down order - 79 runs at 20 from eight matches To suggest Short's List A record is a lie is an odd statement. He's been the best batsman across the past two domestic One Day Cups, without question.
bowledover
Roar Rookie
4 ODIs isnt really enough to judge given the amount of opportunities given to others and the state of the team at the time. Also, im not sure England's model was instantly successful either buts that really neither here nor the there. I am also note sure you would have both of a Lynn and Short. I would have thought the idea might be to include one of them, which in addition to Handscomb, perhaps provides a bit more potency to batting. Lynn while he hasnt set the recent IPL on fire had a reasonable campaign and showed he was capable or more than just bash and bash. If Short can keep showing the kind of form he has in recent domestic series, Id guess he will have a opportunity in future. Smith is looking in decent form which is good. Bit surprised Warner didnt carve it up a bit more in the recent practice games. Stoinis' form is concerning - heck, even MMarsh is looking like he might have been a better option...
Josh H
Roar Rookie
Therein lies the problem mate, why on earth would you take a gamble on a player on the biggest stage in the World Cup when they've only ever played 4 ODI games?! That's what's baffling. The rest have 20+ ODIs to their name and very similar averages. Ever since Justin Langer has came in, he's emphasised that the ODI team stick to their strengths: pick actual, proper batsmen - even if they aren't as hard-hitting - and back our bowlers to defend the total. We only have 2 hitters that are actually good enough to play for Australia - Warner and Maxwell. And what do you know? They were the only ones picked. It's easy for England for to select half a dozen sloggers because they have 7 or 8 of them that are international level. We don't. Simple as that. D'Arcy Short's average is inflated by the one 257 he scored last year, so his average is a number that definitely lies. Usually, I wouldn't use this as an excuse, but given that 257 is such an anomaly (it constitutes nearly 30% of his entire List A runs), it needs to recognised that if you take out that one innings, his average drops to 33. Lynn, McDermott and Turner aren't that much better.
Graham
Guest
Watching the similarly slugglish Pakistan nearly chase down 370 on a road against England's poor bowling unit gave me a little bit more optimism We really need to bat second in matches though since I don't think we know how to pace a 1st innings or what a par score is with our bowling unit
Neel
Roar Guru
Hahahahaha. It will be funny if they do. They are favourite heading into the tournament on the basis of form, but that’s it. There already seems to be some weaknesses appearing in regards to England’s bowling attack.
AREH
Roar Guru
As many on here have said, the method for Australia probably won't be 350+ scores...more ensuring they can get to the 280-320 mark, and backing their bowling unit to win them matches.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
England will choke. They invented most sports that have World Cup and have very little to show for it. Once we acclimatise to the conditions we will make those small grounds our advantage.