Australia currently face two problems they must overcome if they are to win the 2019 World Cup. Firstly, their batting depth has been fiercely challenged.
Our ability to finish innings off with some dynamic lower order hitting has been exposed. But a more critical challenge Australia are experiencing is their third seam bowling option.
Going into the World Cup, the selectors took a huge gamble. Selecting Mitchell Starc despite fitness concerns, they then chose the in-form Pat Cummins and Jhye Richardson, before opting to fly Jason Behrendorff and Nathan Coulter-Nile to England based on their white ball success.
One burning question surrounded the omission of metronome Josh Hazlewood, who found his groove at the right time in the 2015 World Cup to be a key reason for Australia’s wonderful bowling effort in the World Cup final.
Since that victory he has been as solid as a rock. When Starc has faltered, spraying the ball around and losing confidence, Hazlewood has remained steady. He has proven in England he can hit good lengths and will dry up the runs in one day cricket. So why wasn’t he selected?
Josh Hazlewood. (Photo: AAP)
A bigger slap to the face came when Richardson hurt his shoulder, leaving the third pace bowling spot wide open. Surely Hazlewood would come in and build up his strength in order to challenge for that spot? Wrong.
He wasn’t even given a sniff, as the selectors instead flew Kane Richardson over based on his form with the Melbourne Renegades.
Here’s the problem with our choices. The three selections other than Starc and Cummins, who were always going to be shoo-ins for the side, have been based on Big Bash or previous Twenty-20 form.
Coulter-Nile has always been a favourite son of the selectors, and his return to BBL cricket meant his promise with both bat and ball had to be given the chance to flourish in England. Fair enough.
Behrendorff has always been handy, especially as an opening bowler. But when he got the chance to play for Australia he was never going to open the bowling.
So as a first-change bowler does he swing the ball? No. Does he seam it all over the place? No. Is he consistent in building up pressure? No. So why has he been selected, other than as a back up opening bowler?
Kane Richardson is the most baffling of selections. What does he do better than Hazlewood? Can he come in and tie down an end? Will he take regular wickets?
His death bowling is his strong suit, and that came in handy when Cummins was expensive against Sri Lanka. But when the opposition get away to a strong start, like they have against India, Pakistan and the West Indies, will he come in and stem the flow before taking important wickets?
So far he hasn’t looked likely. And it’s damaging Australia – the past few games have been scares for the Aussies because their bowling is lacking that third dimension. That third pace bowler who can make a genuine impact at any time of the game.
Hazlewood would have been perfect. He could have opened the bowling, relegating Cummins to first change.
Or he could’ve come in at first change and applied instant pressure. Ball hitting bat hard. Constant line and length. Some aggression.
But with him not in the squad, will this non-selection prove immensely costly for the Aussies come the business end of the World Cup, when batsmen are piling on the runs and the green and gold need the likes of Hazlewood to do a job?
From what we’ve seen so far, it appears we really need him.
GV
Guest
Indian fan here. If you consider the Aussie squad unbalanced, the Indian team is even more unbalanced depending on the top 3. The lack of Dhawan now has seriously screwed us. The top order has been over performing and in a purple patch. But seriousness we lack an explosive middle order. Pandya is great but he is inconsistent and Dhoni is well past his shelf life as a batsman. Our bowling is what has kept us performing well so far. But would gladly trade the 4 through 6 that Aussies have right now in a heartbeat.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
"exactly what were these changes?" England In 2015 & 2016 against Aus in Aus lost tri-series against NZ in Eng - won 3-2 against Aus in Eng - LOST 2-3 against SA in SA - lost 2-3 against BD in BD - won 2-1** (Lost almost every away ODI series against top teams) 2017 to now against Ind in Ind - lost 1-2 against SA in Eng - won 2-1 against Aus in Aus - WON 4-1 against NZ in NZ - won 3-2 against Aus in Eng - won 5-0 against Ind in Eng - won 2-1 (Won almost every away ODI series against top teams) Reason : Pin pointing their strength in batting ,Jos Buttler 2.0 India In 2015 & 2016 Tri series - Didn't make final against Australia (B team) in Australia - lost 4-1 (Bumrah's debut series) against BD in BD - LOST 1-2 against SA in India - LOST 2-3 against NZ in India - won 3-2 (Lost almost every away ODI series against top teams) 2017 to now against Eng in India - Won 2-1 against Australia in India- won 4-1 against SA in SA - WON 5-1 against Eng in Eng - lost 1-2 against Australia in Australia - WON 2-1 against NZ in NZ - WON 4-1 against Aus in India - lost 2-3 (Won almost every away ODI series against top teams) Reason : Boosting 3 bowlers in top 10 (including top ranked pacer)
JamesH
Roar Guru
Because (a) if one of Khawaja or S Marsh continues to fail you have no one to sub in and (b) our current group of batsmen is unbalanced. Three of them are best suited to opening and two others are at their best at first drop. Smith is probably the only one of those five that you'd call a natural middle order player but his record is still best at 3. If they bat Maxwell at 4 or 5 and he gets out before the 40th over then we lack a powerful player to bring us home. We've seen in the last few matches that our middle order simply isn't functioning. I can't swear Mitch Marsh will fix that but his record is good and he's worth a try for the sake of team balance. An alternative would be to bring in Handscomb because he's the ideal person for that role, but it puts a lot of pressure on Maxwell as the fifth bowler.
Paul
Roar Guru
The following is from your post yesterday; "Why marsh? Why not Faulkner? He was man of the match in last Wc final & one of top 10 highest wicket taker in BBL last season, don’t you think he deserves that chance more than marsh based on his experience of playing in world cup?" As for your comment about England & India going through "extraordinary changes" in the past two years, exactly what were these changes? I went back to the side England used against the Windies in an ODI series and they had the following guys playing in that series, Roy, Bairstow, Hales, Root, Morgan, Stokes, Buttler, Ali, Woakes, Rashid, Plunkett. Sound familiar? I did the same thing with India and found they had a side which contained Sharma, Dhawan, Kohli, Rahul, Dhoni, Jadav, Pandya, Kumar, Bumrah and Chahal. MM is an option because we have few other choices IF the selectors want an all rounder. Would he be better than Stoinis, his record is way better so yes, he probably would. He certainly wouldn't be any worse.
David H
Guest
I want Pattinson. Morgan did OK with a crook back last night.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
"his bowling has been sussed out by the good batsmen and they have played him easily." Paul, similarly, how do you know ,Mitch marsh, who barely played any competitive games in last 2 years has not been worked out ? The reason I am talking about last 2 years is because, 2 top contenders, India & England has gone through extra ordinary changes In that period of time. England has transformed themselves into a giant batting machine. India now boosts 3 bowlers in top 10. Neither was the case in 2016 for any of them. Mitch marsh yet to prove his worth against this odd, don't you think? Whatever the reasons you are mentioning for Faulkner,which is 123% correct, is also true for Marsh. I was not suggesting Faulkner should have been picked. For a guy who barely played anything in last 4 years , it would be crazy. But same goes for Marsh . It was for player to player comparison. My problem with marsh is, he is some kind of "default" button in Australian cricket. Anything happens in cricket world and we are back to Marsh from nowhere. Btw no he is out of the way, good riddance. Still, his selection as "stand by" was baffling to me. I would go with pure batsman or bowler.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Fair enough
Rellum
Roar Guru
Why do we need a back up batsmen. If someone gets injured you can replace them.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Okay, but as I said above they would have no backup batsmen at all if they brought Hazlewood in for Stoinis, and they would have four backup bowlers sitting on the sidelines every game. It has to be another allrounder for Stoinis (if he is actually released) or at least a batsman. They've left themselves with no choice because their initial selections were off.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
I know where you're coming from, but bowlers very rarely blow teams away, hence the adulation when a bowler gets a 5fa. The current game of 340+ 'par scores' means more often than not attempts to restrict the chasers to make them hit out against type is the wicket taking plan. So one man's belief a team imploded, is another's restrictive bowling plan working.
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
I don't disagree with you, as you can see elsewhere on this site, I believe a fit Hazelwood should've been added instead of M Marsh, which has been debated by others as wrong. I'm happy to speculate, but my comment is in the context of the discussion from this article. If Australia does need a different balance to win from here, it obviously has to come from the squad. I was hoping to hear what people thought was the left field or better balance to be achieved now and we can discuss all the 'what ifs' after the tournament.
Paul
Roar Guru
Kopa, he has not bowled an ODI delivery in anger for over two years and there's two reasons for that - he's been injured and his bowling has been sussed out by the good batsmen and they have played him easily. He's not in contention, certainly at this stage, so why labour the point?
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
" in form Faulkner" How do we know Mitch marsh is "in form"? "playing some very ordinary short form cricket " If you are talking about BBL, then he was way better with ball alone than Mitch marsh with both bat & ball.
Paul
Roar Guru
A fit and in form Faulkner would have been the second player chosen behind Aaron Finch, Kopa. Sadly he was injured and playing some very ordinary short form cricket when he was on the park
Peter Warrington
Guest
first time the planets have aligned for 44 years it is what it is. we have 5 world cups and don't want to lose 5 away Ashes in a row
Peter Warrington
Guest
prioritising Ashes I reckon
Brian
Guest
Its the World Cup not some pre-season circus. We are already nursing Pattinson and J Richardson for the Ashes to play along Starc and Cummins. Somehow we are playing this thing with only 2 of the best 5 bowlers in the country in the squad.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
"IF" isn't conclusive enough. My question was , how was he considered as "stand by"? "If someone gets injured Kane Richardson & Josh Hazelwood is standing by" this was official word. How come a guy who didn't play enough competitive cricket in all important last 2 years can be considered as stand by replacement just on the base "like for like"? Why marsh? Why not Faulkner? He was man of the match in last Wc final & one of top 10 highest wicket taker in BBL last season, don't you think he deserves that chance more than marsh based on his experience of playing in world cup?
Paul
Roar Guru
IF he makes the team Kopa, it'll be a like-for-like swap.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Whoops, miscounted. Yeah I did wonder at the initial squad selection. Picking five pacemen and only one backup batsman was madness.