The basis for any cricket match is simple: the team that makes the most runs wins games.
Of course there are games that end up as draws, but clearly a side making fewer runs than their opposition can’t win.
This simple premise forms the basis for selecting Test sides. Traditionally Australian teams have had six batsmen, a wicketkeeper and four bowlers. This formula has varied from time to time, with all-rounders being included at the expense of a batsman.
The aim of this selection formula has been to score lots of runs using Test-quality batsmen and then take 20 opposition wickets for fewer runs using Test quality bowlers.
For the past century or more Australia has been gifted with having lots of choices for both batting and bowling roles, so selectors have been able to stick with this very conventional approach to selecting Test cricket teams.
In 2019, though, we have a serious imbalance in the pools of bowlers and batsmen. We have a massive oversupply of top-quality fast bowlers and significant undersupply of Test-quality batsmen.
(Mike Egerton/PA Images via Getty Images)
The Australian XI that’s likely to play in the first Test this summer will contain three batsmen who, on form, don’t deserve their places. The problem is that all other contenders have fallen by the wayside, forcing selectors to include Dave Warner, Joe Burns and Travis Head.
At the other end of the scale Australia will most likely leave out Michael Neser, Jhye Richardson, James Pattinson (suspended) and Chad Sayers. These are all Test-quality bowlers in either good or very good form.
Why don’t selectors get really brave and choose this list?
- Pat Cummins
- Nathan Lyon
- Marnus Labuschgne
- Steve Smith
- Matthew Wade
- Tim Paine
- Mitchell Starc
- Michael Neser
- Jhye Richardson
- Chad Sayers
- Josh Hazlewood
At first glance this side looks really weird. But is it?
Traditional thinking about winning games implies teams have to make lots of runs because the four bowlers traditionally chosen may need to bowl a lot of overs each to get a team out twice.
In this instance, this team has seven genuine bowling options, so the need to make a lot of runs to win games should be significantly reduced.
Seven bowlers also means Tim Paine will always have guys fit and raring to go at any stage in an innings. This means the quicks can bowl flat out knowing they’d only have a short spell before another top-line bowler replaces them.
Playing all of these guys also removes the need for the ridiculous bowling rotation policy, there being no need to decide which bowlers should play on which surfaces – they all get a game!
Naysayers will point out the obvious: playing this number of bowlers will weaken the batting, especially with Cummins and Lyon to open the innings. But will it?
The following table highlights when Australia lost its first and second wickets during the recent Ashes series;
| First innings | Second innings | |
|---|---|---|
| First Test | 2, 17 | 13, 27 |
| Second Test | 11, 60 | 13, 19 |
| Third Test | 12, 35 | 10, 36 |
| Fourth Test | 1, 28 | 0, 16 |
| Fifth Test | 5, 14 | 18, 29 |
Surely Cummins and Lyon could not do any worse, and once they became comfortable in the role they might surprise many – if only they were they to be given the chance to show what they can do. An additional benefit from these two opening the batting would be that they’ll be fresh when it comes time to bowl.
Labuschagne and Smith repeatedly showed in England their resolve to gut it out, which is exactly what they would need to do in this line-up, but each is in good form, Smith spectacularly so. It seems perfectly reasonable to expect those two, Wade and Paine to make enough runs for this team to win Tests, but how many would they need?
The great West Indies teams of the 1980s reckoned they had enough runs if their batsmen gave them 200 runs to bowl to. In chasing they were very confident about running down teams, leaving chases of 150 to 180. This was with four quality bowlers, so this should be a very achievable number if Paine has seven Test bowlers to use and with Smith in the team.
Sadly, though, this approach of choosing our very best cricketers won’t happen and we’ll all be hoping three out-of-form batsmen suddenly come good, otherwise four very in-form bowlers are going to have a very long Test summer.
Waxhead
Roar Rookie
@Paul yes your proposal has merit and is worth a try imo. I've commented here several times already you could put Cummings and Starc in the top 6 and not score any less runs. Selectors could use your method until they find some batsman with real Test potential. Aussie selectors won't do it of course
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Not me. The opening spot with Warner was a lottery. Lots of uncertainty whether it should be Labuschagne/Wade/M Marsh in the squad? Did Khawaja still deserve a spot after his summer? And Paine's returns had been in decline. Smith and Warner were assumed as yeses, except no-one was quite sure how they would go in their return to FC, notwithstanding the WC. Head was untried properly o/s but seemed likely to perform. Beyond that.....? And then there was the intra squad game.
Paul
Roar Guru
I actually thought we had a real good chance with the bat before the Ashes, Jeff. Warner seemed in reasonable form,obviously Smith did as well,while Head, Wade and co, seemed capable of at least hanging around. This time round, when all of these guys have ahd a chance to really show us some good solid batting,only Smith, & Wade have been convincing. The rest only so-so, hence my comment
Jeff
Roar Rookie
4 quicks and two specialty spinners if it's a wicket with history of change across 5 days?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Tony Mann at first drop nightwatchman.
Greg
Roar Pro
Cant get enough variety from 5 bowlers? More often then not a well balanced attack will get enough variety from 4 bowlers. In some conditions a 5th will be needed for added variety and workload management, hence Australia's obsession with finding an allrounder. But like I said, i have no issues picking a 5th bowler especially as there is no quality all rounder to choose. Im not sure what conditions or where you could possibly need more than that? I cant see what a 5th quick could provide that the first 4 haven't?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
"it’s the first time in decades I can remember going into a series “hoping” we have batsmen who can step up, as opposed to knowing we do." I think we just did that in the last series. Indeed leading into the Ashes I proposed something similar - not to the same degree - but giving up at least one specialist batsman for an extra bowler. The response was often why would you weaken an already weak batting line up? My counter was if the batting line-up was already weak due to a couple or three specific weak-links, what are you actually giving up in terms of runs made versus runs saved (noting the extra bowler will still probably score a few)? Sometimes the flexibility of an increased variety of bowlers can be beneficial to extract the best outcome possible as conditions change or certain batsmen are at the wicket. If the principle of bowling variety didn't apply and it was all about just giving bowlers a rest (hence 4 + 1 in rotation is sufficient), we wouldn't see teams occasionally going in with two spinners or otherwise wringing hands over whether they should play a second spinner at the expense of dropping a quick, even though there is clear merit in having a second spinner at some point during the match.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Though a variety (the correct variety) of bowlers can achieve different things at different times based on changing conditions or the particular batsman at the crease.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Under Paul's scenario, I'd be opening with Paine as he has perhaps the best defensive technique in the team and is ideally suited to see off the new ball.
John
Guest
Head averages 42 Lambuschgne averages 37, Head has passed 50 7 times Lambuschgne 5 times. I dont get how Head doesn't deserve a spot in the team but Lambuschgne does?
Johnb
Guest
They're getting away from it now, under a new coach with the influence of Joyce reduced now that his "11 best cricketers" approach has been discredited - the team to play the Kiwis tomorrow is expected to be along the lines of Burns (specialist bat) Sibley (specialist bat) Denly (specialist bat and very part time leggie) Root (specialist bat and part time offie) Stokes (batting all-rounder, a spot high at 5) Pope (specialist bat) Buttler (batsman/keeper - many participants in English cricket blogs would prefer Foakes, regarding him as a better keeper; at least Buttler is filling a role in a normally structured team rather than being a weird luxury specialist bat at 7 as they were trying him when he first came back) Woakes or Curran (each a seam bowler who can bat a bit - questionable whether either is a good enough bowler away from England, but who do they have who is better?) Archer (specialist fast bowler) Broad (specialist seam bowler) Leach (slow left arm specialist bowler). A traditionally structured team where you have the good fortune to have a sufficiently good all-rounder available - 5 batsmen, the all-rounder, a keeper and 4 bowlers.
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
That's the one.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Wade was pretty dire with the bat in the test side for a while when he got the boot. His ashes still leaves some questions open despite the invaluable ton in the first test.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Id say four to five players retained the ashes. One thing Ive considered hard is four seamers though at brisbane. Someone like Neser can bat quite well and his bowling at gabba this summer has been better than Starcs despite recent form at other grounds. If anything the article reminds me our tail did wag quite a bit in england and can bat quite deep and the seamers are so good at the moment that sticking with 3 seamers and one spinner with no all rounder seems a little bit shallow going in to brisbane , considering these pakistan batsman have been making some runs too this tour so far. Starc is generally more effective with shorter spells. Thats the one thing Id back up from the article. We may well win either way but our pace bowling is very strong right now and we could utilize it more to our advantage. Neser, Starc, Cummins have demonstrated they can make some decent runs between them with bat
badmanners
Roar Rookie
Smith can bowl! That's how his test career started! Maybe make him bat left handed which I seem to remember he did once in a first grade match for the last ball and belted it over the fence.
JGK
Roar Guru
Was that the one where Wade got a pretty important ton?
Brett A
Roar Rookie
Because he is trolling you. Just leave it.
TheGeneral
Roar Rookie
It was a talking point, and yet created a lot of vile comments. Have you written an article on here ? Maybe if or when you do, we will be happy to critique you.
Greg
Roar Pro
its absurd because you can only have one person bowl at a time. 5 bowlers (4 quicks/1 spinner or 3 quicks/2 spinners depending on conditions) is all you need because by the time bowlers 4 and 5 are being used 1 and 2 are rested and ready to go again. More bowlers doesn't equal more wickets. I understand a 5th bowler due to quicks needing a rest and agree if our batsman are no good may as well use a bowler but there is certainly no need for 7
Pope Paul VII
Roar Rookie
One of the most arrogant, self indulgent and awfully balanced Australian teams, was a Sydney test vs SL a few years back that had 6. Wade (when he was a still a stopper) 7. Johnson 8. Siddle 9. Starc 10. Lyon 11. Bird Maxwell was the unlucky batsman, with a bit of bowling his advantage of Khawaja who was also left out. Johnson, who had scored 92 at no.8 the previous test, proclaimed loudly that he was not an allrounder and not a no.7, despite coach and management talking him up. He subsequently scored 11 in 68 mins. Australia won pretty easily as Clarke marshalled his bowlers to give everyone a go. The benefits for this line up was what exactly? Strangely Johnners was not selected for the next test in India despite his outstanding form with bat and ball. Less strangely, he didn't do his homework. Pettily he then got left out of the 2013 Ashes tests for lack of form. To be fair the New Delhi team in India was worse, 5 specialist batsman on a spinners paradise. While the 2016 team in SL, 4 specialist batsmen, was the dopiest of all time.