Australia cannot afford to field the incredibly long tail that would come with playing five specialist bowlers, a strategy which many fans and even some pundits are calling for.
I can understand the logic behind playing an extra bowler, a tactic which fellow Roar expert David Schout eloquently argued for yesterday.
But Australia simply do not have the right set of bowlers to make such a strategy work across the rest of the tournament. Here are five reasons I think it would be a mistake for Australia to play five bowlers for the rest of this World Cup.
Nathan Coulter-Nile would bat at 11 in the England ODI team
The upshot of the five-bowler strategy is that Coulter-Nile would bat at number seven for Australia. Coulter-Nile is not close to being an all-rounder, he is a genuine tail-ender. The West Australian has a batting average of 16 in ODIs, 19 in List A cricket and 18 in first-class cricket.
In 31 ODIs he has reached 20 only three times.
All of which very strongly suggests Coulter-Nile’s match-winning 92 against the West Indies was an anomaly, a once-in-a-lifetime performance he won’t go near replicating any time soon.
If the rank spin of Aaron Finch snared say 5-40 yesterday against Pakistan – he did grab a key wicket and had an easy stumping missed in his two overs – would people be suggesting Finch bowl ten overs a match for the remainder of this World Cup?
Because that is akin to the push for tail-ender Coulter-Nile to bat at seven. When Australia won the 2015 World Cup their numbers seven and eight (Brad Haddin and James Faulkner) had career ODI batting averages of 31 and 42.
Under the five-bowler strategy Australia’s numbers seven and eight would have batting averages of 16 and 10. Consider that, in the current England ODI line-up, Coulter-Nile would bat at 11. Adil Rashid has batted at 11 for England numerous times recently, including in this tournament, and he has ten first-class centuries.
Nathan Coulter-Nile has a bowling average of 111 in this World Cup
If Australia had five bowlers in blazing form who combined would create a rampant attack then it would make much more sense to go with such a strategy. The reality is they have two bowlers playing very well – Pat Cummins and Mitchell Starc – while the rest have floundered.
The argument of playing Coulter-Nile at seven hinges on him being such a valuable bowler that it makes up for having an extremely long tail. This idea flummoxes me. Coulter-Nile has figures of 2-222 so far in this World Cup at an economy rate of six runs per over, well above the rates of Cummins (4.40) and Starc (5.38).
The seamer was also pounded for 61 runs from six overs in Australia’s final warm-up match against tournament favourites England. Why, then, do people want to greatly weaken Australia’s batting in order to keep Coulter-Nile’s bowling?
Playing five specialist bowlers is too big a change to make midway through a World Cup
In arguing for Australia to play five bowlers in this World Cup, my colleague David Schout wrote that, should he replace the injured Stoinis, it was too risky to bring all-rounder Mitch Marsh into the starting XI. Schout stated that Marsh’s lack of recent one-day cricket meant it was an unacceptably large gamble to introduce him in the middle of a World Cup.
While I don’t agree with that point about Marsh, who I think has the ability to adapt quickly to this challenge, I do echo the concerns about the dangers of making major alterations in the middle of a World Cup.
But surely playing five specialist bowlers – something I can’t remember Australia doing regularly in all of my years of watching ODI cricket – represents a bigger gamble than introducing a tried-and-tested all-rounder who lacks match practice. Australia at times in the past have played a bowling all-rounder at seven but Coulter-Nile is not an all-rounder.
Introducing in the middle of a World Cup a strategy as audacious as playing five specialist bowlers is something that should only be triggered by a crisis situation. It is a last resort. But Australia are not in crisis.
They need only win three of their next five matches to make the semi-finals. There is no need for Australia to start experimenting with daring strategies at this point. Later in the tournament, should more traditional plans fall apart, then, by all means, take a punt. But not now.
If Australia wanted to try to win this World Cup with five specialist bowlers they needed to trial this bold tactic in the lead-up games. Unless all else has failed, making a massive change to your long-term approach in the middle of a tournament is folly.
(Photo by Simon Cooper/PA Images via Getty Images)
Kane Richardson, Jason Behrendorff, Adam Zampa and Nathan Lyon are batting bunnies
Having taken two wickets at 111 in this tournament and been smashed in Australia’s last warm-up game, Coulter-Nile cannot justifiably retain his spot. What, then, does that mean for the five-bowler strategy? All of the fringe bowlers in the squad are worse batsmen than Coulter-Nile.
Jason Behrendorff, Kane Richardson, Adam Zampa and Nathan Lyon all are number 11 batsmen at this level, perhaps number ten at best in the case of Lyon, and that’s being generous.
Three of those very limited batsmen would follow the number seven and eight pair of Cummins and Starc, who average just 10 and 12 with the bat in ODIs, respectively. That would amount to easily the weakest seven-to-11 batting combination I have seen Australia field in ODIs.
It would place too great a pressure on the top six
Cast your mind ahead to a scenario where Australia are in a must-win match against a high-scoring line-up like England, India or the West Indies. The pitch is flat, the ground is tiny and even a target of 350 won’t be easily defended.
Australia’s top six need to play with minimal fear to try to set or chase such a sizeable total. One of the keys to England’s ability to consistently churn out massive scores is the confidence and freedom to attack instilled by their incredible batting depth, with competent strikers down to number 11.
Now consider how difficult it would be for the Australian batsmen to be aggressive, to risk their wickets, in the knowledge they have a tailender batting at seven, and worse to come after that.
Aware that they can’t rely on getting runs out of their final five batsmen, how could the top six confidently take the game on until before they are deep into the team innings? This is why balance is so important to an ODI team.
It’s why sides prefer to select players between five and nine in their order who are multi-skilled. If Australia play with five bowlers it will leave them with a lopsided line-up that places enormous pressure on their top six.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Yes, there is a bit of that from certain commenters on this site...
Jeff
Roar Rookie
This is what I was trying to discuss with Kopa Shamsu on the Leibke Ratings article from a few days ago also. M Marsh isn't the second coming, but neither is he the devil incarnate. I find Marsh-bashing so lazy and is generally promoted by those whose comments-history is mostly populated with easy-to say, hard-to-justify, negative comments. No analysis or critical thought, just "I say no" and don't question me about it, otherwise my I will take a defensive position and my defence will be abuse.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Yes, I think in terms of Test cricket the WK now almost always fills the role of an extra batter and most bowlers now have some depth to their batting ability. ODI's though, you need 3-4, (including WK) to fulfill a dual roll (be it some are weighted towards batting and some towards bowling).
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Genuine allrounders who are truly test class batsmen and bowlers are extremely rare, in test history you could probably count them on one hand. Kallis would probably be the only one in recent history. If you are lucky enough to come across one of them then you are in a good place, but can't be expecting one. More commonly there are two types off allrounders in test cricket. Players who are well and truly test level at one discipline, and "more than handy" at the other, and players who are probably not quite test level at either discipline, but the combination of the two makes them a very useful test players. Watto definitely falls into the latter category. But in my lifetime there have been plenty in the former category too. The Waugh brothers certainly both fell into that category, certainly in the first half of their careers. Bowling allrounders like Bothan, Kapil Dev, Wasim Akram etc also. Personally, I think this latter category is generally the more useful, especially if you are able to have a couple of them. (If one of your main bowlers can be the "bowling allrounder" type, and one of your batsmen can be the "batting allrounder" type - ie one is good enough to make the side purely on their bowling and the other purely on their batting) - then that allows for the best balanced sides I think.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Agreed. We just haven't be able to develop a true world class allrounder for such a long time. Actually who was the last that we could have classified in that way? Esp Test cricket? I remember growing up that Greg Chappell was consider our allrounder!
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Definitely! Watto could swing the ball and bowl accurately, so in the right conditions he could be devastating with the ball. His big issue with the bat was having that modern method of plonking the front foot down and then being forced to play around it if the ball doesn't end up where first thought. Great for demolishing the bowling when the ball isn't doing much, but not that adaptable to swinging conditions. Still, a batting average of 35 and bowling of 33 makes him a pretty decent test allrounder. Certainly compares very favourably to the 25/43 that we've got from Mitch Marsh since Watto stopped playing test cricket.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Small and selective sample size, but I was in Cape Town for the Newlands Test in Nov 2011. After M Clarke and completed his inning for 150+ in a rain-affected morning session, Watto came out after lunch and took 5 wickets in 25 balls to have SA all out for 96. It was simply incredible to be there and witness that performance in the context of what had occurred with Clarke in the morning session. He was unplayable in that middle session, with low cloud still forming off the back side of Table Mountain and the aroma of yeast wafting across the ground from the adjacent Cascade Brewery. Then in what seemed like a cricketing heartbeat, we were 9-21, then 47 all out. (Saffers rounded out the day by batting again and being 1 for 80ish at stumps). The most bizarre and wonderful day of cricket I have ever been present at - started with completion of a 150+ individual innings and concluded after 20+ wickets and viewing of all four innings in the one day. Watto had his ups and downs, but on balance I think an under-appreciated talent.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Kopa, is the best you can do on this forum limited to belittling, abusing and making sarcastic comments without actually addressing the facts and maybe acknowledging there may be some shortcomings in your particularly biased stances? I think most people on Roar Cricket love the game and are keen to engage in robust discussion; but robust discussion isn't about abusiveness. If you have points to make, make them with well thought arguments and consider others' perspectives and if you can find common ground, acknowledge it, and where you differ, argue your point with facts, leaving bias/defensiveness - and abuse - out of it.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Good Lord. I thought I was the only one dealing with Kopa's irrationality (we had a tussle on the Lebkie Ratings article). I don't think anyone is claiming M Marsh is the second coming (I'm certainly not), but we have limited options for a replacement batting allrounder and M Marsh is at least on par, but probably better, than the options we have available.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Just more Marsh-bashing with no actual basis for it. This isn't test cricket. Go and look at his ODI record.
Dart
Guest
I’ve said it before, and I know it is controversial, but I would be open to Australia going in with just three specialist bowlers. Say Starc, Cummins and Lyon. Then they would need twenty overs out of M. Marsh, Maxwell, Smith, Finch and Stoinis. Unfortunately, the squad they picked was inflexible and had seven bowlers to fit into four spots. Sure. Those twenty overs would have cost runs. But with an extra batter, it would have allowed Australia to bat more positively and without fear. You can smash our fourth and fifth bowling option, but we are still going to score more runs than you.
Asthon
Roar Rookie
M Marsh at 5? You have to be kidding me. Jofra Archer, Bumrah, Boult and co would be licking their lips at the prospect of knocking him over.
Asthon
Roar Rookie
Exactly this Andrew. Warner can slog at any time. If they are going for 6, the fielding restrictions dont matter as much. Conversely, Khawaja is the consummate opener....scoring at a decent clip, stabilising the whole innings and creating a platform for maxwell (and warner) to launch from.
Asthon
Roar Rookie
we dont need an all rounder. 6 best bats, wicket keeper and 4 best bowlers is a good way to go. Maxwell is getting 10 overs down at a good economy rate, and often times better than zampa or any of the other bowlers. Infatuation with past glory is not going to change the current facts. Stoinis is a weak link at the moment, he is getting smashed out the park with his bowling and isnt getting any runs. Replacing him with an outright batter or bowler will very likely strengthen that respective department.
Asthon
Roar Rookie
Maxwell should be the all rounder. He is getting 10 overs down at a better economy than the pacers.
boonboon
Roar Pro
Personally I would bring Marsh in as a replacement for the 4th bowler. We are getting no bowling value out of our bowlers outside of Cummins and Strac so I say pick our best spinner which ever that be and then play Mitch Marsh at 8. Coulter Niles bowling isnt cutting it and history should tell everyone he has had his 1 great innings for this world cup perhaps ever so isn't going to get another one. So the team becomes Finch, Warner, Kahwaja, Smith, Maxwell,S Marsh, A Carey, M Marsh, P Cummins, M Starc and A Zampa - so while in theory ur bowling gets a little worse the form of the other bowlers indicates it cant and your batting gets better and longer giving your batsment the opportunity to be more agressive and not leave all agression to Maxy
ss
Guest
You are right. I dont understand that Maxwell has not even made 30 in his last few innings 4* - Afg 0 - Windies 28 - Ind 20 - Pak Getting all this credit for those scores??? Gimme a break. Could have lost any one of those games.... Top order and bowlers had to work extra hard.... Although I admit Maxwell played well against Sri Lanka. Well done!! I guess that is what he is there for. Once in five innings. Will take that in a world cup!!!
Peter Warrington
Guest
you really don't seem to understand limited overs cricket and what it takes to accelerate the scoring and maxwell hasn't made a 30 for his last 16 digs in ODI, and it's 15 T20s since he made a 30.
ss
Guest
Well, he brings very little to the table for an international cricketer. Of all the cricketers picked on hype and potential (including the infamous Marshes) Maxi has enjoyed the most forgiveness. To be back and back again and delivering 30's gets tiring for the fans. Sure he does light up the contest and plays some eyecatching shots but never really wins the game. I consider his batting skills to be inferior (purely because of his underwhelming record) and should not be anywhere near the side let alone having the full backing of the coaches and certianity of playing every game. He might come of once in a while but generally has failed (to score 50's and 100's) so its kinda mind boggling why he is still there.. I guess his whole heartedness gives him an automatic start, but tell me which international cricketer will not give everything to play for the country...
Peter Warrington
Guest
does SS stand for "silly saturday"? nobody ever said he was reliable. except in one regard. he will always try and do what he thinks is right for the team, at any point in time. he, of all the guys, knows he is not playing for an ashes berth, so he will leave nothing on the table.