Australia should continue to play five bowlers as they build towards next year’s T20 World Cup.
Their decision to position bowling all-rounder Ashton Agar at seven against Sri Lanka prompted a lot of debate among cricketer followers.
Many fans argued that instead of playing a fifth bowler, Australia would be better off either with an extra batsman and getting four overs out of Glenn Maxwell, or picking a batting all-rounder like Mitch Marsh or Marcus Stoinis.
There is obvious merit in such an approach, and Australia may yet decide this is their best balance. For now, though, they are trialling a five-bowler strategy and I think it is wise.
It was clear Australia were set to implement this bowler-heavy tactic when they chose not to include either Stoinis or Marsh in their squad for the six T20Is against Sri Lanka and Pakistan.
For a side with a top four as strong as Australia, they do not need their number seven to have batting as their primary skill. It makes more sense for them to be a bowler, first and foremost, like Agar or James Faulkner. Why?
Because the fifth bowler will often need to send down 24 deliveries in a match, which means they have as large a role to play as the star bowlers. Whereas, with the bat, Australia’s number seven is rarely required to take on much responsibility.
In the past two years, Australia’s number seven has not even been required to bat in ten out of their 23 matches. Over those games, only four times did Australia’s number seven face 20 or more balls.
Those stats underline just what a limited role Australia’s number seven is required to play with the bat. Not to mention that two thirds of those matches were played overseas. That is significant for two reasons.
Firstly, Australia are a stronger batting side on home pitches, and secondly next year’s T20 World Cup will be played down under.
If Australia’s number seven is rarely needed to play a significant role with the bat, even overseas, then why would the Aussies pick a number seven whose primary skill is batting? Surely it makes more sense to select a bowling all-rounder?
Australian coach Justin Langer may well agree. During his hugely successful reign in charge of the Perth Scorchers, they regularly played five bowlers, with Agar batting in the top seven. This bowling strength was their trademark, as the Scorchers routinely strangled opposition batting lineups.
(Photo by Mark Brake – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
Langer may be seeking to replicate this strategy with the Australian T20I team. Agar could be central to such a ploy. Australia’s batting lineup is strong enough, and Agar sufficiently talented with the blade, for him to be trialled at number seven.
What his presence in that position does is significantly bolster Australia’s T20I attack. It is a major advantage to have a fifth bowler as economical as Agar, who has conceded a miserly 6.64 runs per over across 14 matches since returning to the Aussie side last year. While he is not a big wicket-taker, he is difficult to get after and creates pressure his bowling colleagues can exploit.
During the recent ODI World Cup, Australia’s fifth-sixth bowler combination of Maxwell and Stoinis was a major weakness. Together they took just seven wickets at 77 and were regularly targeted by the opposition, creating headaches for skipper Aaron Finch.
In T20Is, Maxwell has long been used sparingly with the ball, having not sent down a single delivery in 16 of his past 25 matches. Stoinis, meanwhile, has been given a bigger workload in T20Is but has struggled, taking nine wickets at 35 while bleeding 8.32 runs per over. Combined with his regular failures with the bat (average of 15 and strike rate of 116 in T20Is) and his awful ODI form, Stoinis was correctly dumped from the Australian side.
Agar, by comparison to that pair, offers Australia a far more economical and reliable fifth bowling option. Rather than Finch wondering how and when he will sneak through the four overs required to be sent down by the likes of Stoinis and Maxwell, with Agar in that role he can be confident in each of his five bowlers.
That gives him greater flexibility. The fact Agar is a spinner also allows Australia to play to their strength.
They can pick three specialist quicks while still fielding two quality slow bowlers, ensuring they don’t overlook the key role played by spin in the shortest format. Playing five bowlers has many upsides for Australia.
It is a worthwhile strategy to test out a year ahead of the World Cup.
Sumo
Guest
Mitch Marsh has broken bones in his hand after an unfortunate angry moment in the change rooms. He won’t be available for any cricket matches for a month or so
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Thommo after his tennis accident too.
David
Guest
Can Ashton Agar spin the ball these days? I can only remember his first test for Australia and don't remember him spinning a single delivery. His run rate sounds reasonable for a T20 bowler but I just have visions of a Jayasuriya-type spoiling bowler who bowls flat and at the pads. It might be effective but, as a spectacle, it's cricket at its worst. It is so ugly to watch.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
Sure. Maybe he could rest a bit from ODIs over the next year then.
The Bush
Roar Guru
His IPL record does suggest that he can do it, but that still doesn't explain why he hasn't been able to do it at international level. I suppose I might be a bit biased in that I don't see him as key to this team and I feel he really was starting to buckle under the weight of all that cricket before his ban, so I'd rather he focused on the other formats (especially the one in which he is the supreme master).
Pete
Guest
He's actually got a great IPL record which is where he plays almost all of his T20 cricket. Averages 37 at a strike rate of 128 which is exactly what is required from him at 3.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think you'll find that he's pretty desperate to be involved in the T20's with a world cup in Australia next year.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Just FYI, throwing and bowling actions are quite different, so struggling with throwing doesn't necessarily translate to struggles with bowling. I've had a dodgy shoulder since my mid-20's that made it hard for me to throw with any real power, yet it didn't affect my bowling at all. There have been a few fast bowlers over the years with similar shoulder issues who ended up generally bowling the ball back from the outfield because the should wouldn't let them throw it. Courtney Walsh was one, I think Michael Holding did it towards the end of his career too, and pretty sure there have been others over the years also.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I'd think you just need to just forget about his bowling at this point. He may never seriously take up bowling again, might just focus purely on his batting and that's it. Plenty of players who started their careers as allrounders have largely dropped the bowling element as time has gone on, be that for injury or other reasons. I wouldn't be surprised, after such a break from bowling, if he even really gets fully back into it like before even if he fully recovers from the injury that stopped his bowling in the first place.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think you probably do, because the times you don't need that type of batsman are generally the times when you've been able to have a big opening partnership like this match, and are going to leave a lot of batsmen in the sheds. And I think if he got more of a string of T20 internationals under his belt he could probably get into the rhythm of it better. His T20 internationals really have been quite sporadic. He never gets a chance to play the BBL, about his only domestic T20's are the IPL, and he's clearly pretty highly rated over there as he keeps getting pretty big IPL contracts (though I can admit marketing might play a part in that, with a big name player like Smith possibly worth more to a team than a less well known player who might go just as well on the field).
The Bush
Roar Guru
I get what you're saying Chris, but when you've only got limited spots for batsmen, you need to really consider if you have space for someone to play that role. This is especially so when Carey might actually be perfectly suited to playing that role...
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Don’t know about Smith being a problem. He wasn’t needed in this match because it was a high scoring match where the first wicket fell at 122. If the pitch is doing a bit more and they lose an early wicket then they would be glad to have Smith walking out at 3.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
I think he’s more of a grafting batsman than a hitter too.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Not so much judging Carey, as noting his lack of experience in a T20 finisher role. Most strong T20I sides will have a known power hitter at 6 or 7. In saying that, Carey's nearest keeper-batsman competitors are probably Wade, McDermott and Philippe, none of whom play that finisher role in T20s either. One advantage Carey and Agar have is that they're both excellent between the wickets. turning 1s into 2s will take a little pressure off them to go big.
AREH
Roar Guru
Yeah definitely better suited to bowling with the red ball I think, having often seemed a little wayward in the BBL. Quality top order players probably benefit from his pace in the shorter forms.
AREH
Roar Guru
Yeah I think M.Marsh, Christian or a firing Faulkner would best solve this right now.
Diamond Jackie
Roar Rookie
Agar should be picked for at least the next 50 games Australia plays based only on that 99 he got in the ashes in what seems like decades ago. It remains one of the most remarkable innings of all time in any format !!!
Nick
Roar Guru
You’d be mad to bet against Steve Smith, As it was said in the Fairfax papers, but if you removed Steve Smith's name from his T20 statistics, one of the first questions you'd be asking is..."surely we aren''t picking this player?"
BurgyGreen
Guest
"there are going to be games, and sometimes important games, when you need your 7-8 to be consistent fast scorers" This may be so, but I think there are going to be more games where you need your fifth bowler to bowl an economical spell. Someone like Stoinis going for 15 off an over can lose you a match just as easily as a failure from a number 7.
Flexis
Roar Rookie
It surprises me a little that T20 team make ups haven’t evolved quicker along this line of thinking. I mean it’s only 120 balls. Consider match condition where 7+ are relied on for significant contributions out of 120 balls. (And by significant I mean looking to build an innings and not just tee off) It’s either an awful batting failure or bowling friendly conditions right? So why plan for the worst and focus selection on the first option? Its not as if bowlers at 7 & 8 are gonna be bunnies and can’t tee off when needed. Forego a handful of runs to exploit the conditions. Suppose from another perspective sometimes it doesn’t matter who’s bowling - they’re gonna get tonked. But I can’t see it costing more games than it wins. And just maybe in a few years we’ll be debating about playing six specialist bowlers.