If Australia want to win an Ashes series on English soil again, it’s high time they selected Mitchell Starc for the fourth Test.
Despite a strong performance in the just-completed tour game against Derbyshire, it seems that Australia’s premium left-arm quick is not necessarily a shoo-in for Manchester. After the match, national team selector Trevor Hohns gave one of his typically cagey press conferences and wouldn’t confirm whether Starc would play.
Unless you speak Hohns’ language and can read between the lines, or perhaps more likely, you are a journalist searching desperately for a headline, there is no way anyone can truly know who will make up the XI at Old Trafford.
Hohns’ comments on Starc were typically ambivalent, as he said that the 51-Test veteran “gives them a good option” but that decision-makers will “have a look at the pitch” before making a call on the team.
I’m hoping that Hohns has already locked Starc in for the fourth Test and he just doesn’t want to give England an early tip-off.
But just in case there is a doubt over whether Starc should play, here is my case for his inclusion.
(Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
Firstly, the tall left-armer holds a small advantage over England’s in-form batsman, Ben Stokes.
Anyone remember that near-perfect yorker Starc bowled to dismiss Stokes in the group stage of the World Cup? It was one of the balls of the tournament, ripping through the defences of the Christchurch cruiserweight just as he was trying to launch an attack on Australia’s total of 285.
One wicket doesn’t make you someone’s bunny for life, of course. But it was the sort of ball that a batsman doesn’t easily forget and will surely make Stokes cautious against Starc in the future. A curtailing of Stokes’ late-innings creativity will be a real benefit, if England’s talisman is forced to bat with the tail again this series – a prospect that doesn’t appear unlikely.
That brings me to Starc’s ability to dismiss lower-order batsmen, another reason he should get picked in Manchester. You don’t need to run a deep statistical analysis to work out that Starc is deadly against tailenders.
In the recent tour match in Derbyshire, he dismissed batsmen seven, eight and nine in one over of Derbyshire’s first innings before removing the last two batsmen in two balls in the second innings. It was a quick and painless finish, which Australia could have done with at Headingley.
Some argue that Starc gets a lot of his wickets this way. Who cares, especially in this series?
One of Australia’s obvious advantages over England is its lower-order batting. Where Australia’s bowlers have been plucky with the willow in hand for years, England’s bowlers don’t normally show much mettle. That being said, they have showed some signs of improvement recently. Don’t expect that to continue if they are forced to face up to Starc.
Let’s face it: whether Starc picks up wickets against England’s top order or not is no big deal. Of course, it would be desirable, but the rest of the bowlers have comfortably dismissed Rory Burns, Joe Denly and Jason Roy all series, and there’s no reason that should change.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the 29-year-old is physically fresh and a bit dirty about not being selected. With Australia’s glut of top bowlers at the moment, returning pacers are hungry to prove their worth.
Josh Hazlewood has bowled brilliantly since his return to the Test side and is clearly a man on a mission. Peter Siddle has also performed strongly when selected, after surely thinking his time in the national side was over. If Starc were to get the nod at Old Trafford, I’m sure he’d deliver.
The left-armer’s comeback, coupled with the return of Steve Smith at the batting crease, would give Australia its best chance of going 2-1 up. It’s a chance that Australia’s selectors have to be bold enough to take.
Andre Leslie
Roar Guru
Let's see how he goes over the remainder of the Test - but I think both of our sets of comments have held true already. He's shown a bit of X-factor at times already (with ball and bat) and at the same time, he's given more runs away than he should have. I did notice that he got the wicket of Ben Stokes though. I'm sure you didn't miss that either, being such an astute cricket observer.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Fear, no, but that doesn't mean he isn't susceptible to getting out to short pitched bowling, particularly early in his innings. Like Ponting was, he is aggressive off the back foot and it has brought about his downfall before. That said, I agree that the priority should be getting him driving. With the exception of perhaps Burns, who has shown he is troubled by good short bowling, we should be getting all of England's batsmen coming forward.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Yep, this Gregorian chant about Starc being "deadly against the tail" is a myth. I'd love to get my paws on the CricVis database, you could bust so many unsupported opinions that have somehow become accepted 'facts'. Like; "Michael Clarke was a great player of spin". MInd you, now that the Nein mob are gone there won't be as many of these myths being plopped out to bust.
Rob
Guest
PS, these are test stats. Getting Stokes in the ODI WC would have been the 3rd time he has bowled him.
Rob
Guest
Stokes is most vulnerable to the ball pitched up. He has zero fear of short pitched bowling. I think Australia needs to reassess how they should be bowling to Stokes as he may very well be the difference in this series.
Rob
Guest
Some interesting facts about Starc. He has taken 41% of his wickets bowled or LBW. Cummins has taken 15% bowled or LBW. Stokes has been bowled or 33% of his Test career. Lyon has dismissed Stokes 5 of 23 innings, Johnson 4 of 17, Starc 2 of 9 both times bowled. In 35 innings Pattinson (1/4), Cummins(1/6), Hazlewood(1/11), Siddle (1/14). Interestingly Stokes seems to struggle with Right Arm of Spin and left hand bowlers Boult, Hasan, Raiz or pace bowler that attack his stumps. 68% of Starc wickets have been batsmen 1-7. Over 75% of Starc’s wickets against the English have been 1-7.
JamesH
Roar Guru
The only reasons for bringing Starc in would be (a) other bowlers being in need of a rest or (b) a quick, bouncy pitch at Manchester. In that sense Hohns is absolutely right to say that they will have a look at the wicket before deciding. Australia's bowling plan this series has been to bowl with discipline and make the batsmen play, with the odd short-ball tactic to particular players, and it's worked a treat. Forget those final, mad hours at Headingley; Stokes produced a once-in-a-decade knock to pull his side out of the fire. It's not suddenly going to become the norm. The bowling plan doesn't need changing unless the pitch dictates otherwise, and Starc isn't capable of executing the current plan. He's never had the required degree of control. He should play if we get a fast, hard wicket because that's where he thrives but on slower, seaming pitches he's never been particularly effective.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Here we go again. So, your reasons for including Starc are; 1. Starc bowled a good *white* ball to Stokes in a 50 over game. Seriously? That's the first thing you mention? 2. "You don’t need to run a deep statistical analysis to work out that Starc is deadly against tailenders." Errr. Yes you do. Otherwise, you are simply doing a Mark Taylor, stating an unsupported opinion. Then there's the gaping hole in this statement. ie. If Starc is so "deadly" against the rabbits then a career average of 28 *must* mean that he's bowling runs against the top-order. And "bowling runs" is the main reason why the selectors haven't picked him. They decided that a suffocating policy was the way to go against the poms ODI-bred batting lineup, and you'd have to say it's been a good strategy. Starc loses out badly to his competition in the suffocation stakes with his career RPO of 3.9 being way in advance of Sidds 2.9 & Cummins & Hazels 2.8. Even in the glorified centre wicket practice against 2nd Division Derbyshires 2nd XI, of which you've lauded his performance, he was easily the most expensive Oz quick on display. 3. "[Starc] is physically fresh and a bit dirty about not being selected" Actually, how do you know either? Aside from that, neither of those is any substitute for form or ability. Starc is a nice & likeable lad, but he's just not been bowling well in the red ball game for about 18 months now. His radar is in need of an upgrade and his ability to consistently swing either the old or new ball seems to have gone MIA. Anyway, I'm confident that he'll get another cap or thirty. The chances of Pattinson, Cummins & Hazlewood all staying fit are about the same as a month going by without a massacre in America.
cruyff turn
Roar Rookie
I agree with bringing Starc back, even if it means dropping Pattinson. They're expecting a hard, quick surface at Old Trafford, so it could potentially produce reverse swing. Some have also suggested the inclusion of Mitch Marsh. I was dead against this, but now I believe the idea has wheels: an extra bowling option to allows the three frontline quicks to bowl in short fast spells. Plus, England seem to have the measure of our left handers, though Marsh at no. 6 by no means fills me with confidence! As for the opening spot, I can't decide. Both Harris and Khawaja have their good points. They'll probably select Khawaja for his experience.