Such has been the scale of the summer of Marnus that when it was announced the Australian Test No. 3 had been picked in a one-day squad for the first time you might have been excused for thinking that couldn’t possibly right.
Surely a guy in this kind of form has played ODIs before, right?
Well, no, and for two reasons.
The first reason is that Marnus Labuschagne’s steep run of international form didn’t properly kick off until the second Ashes Test at Lord’s in August. The second is – quite strangely when you consider the usual proliferation of seemingly pointless ODI series – that Australia hasn’t played a one-dayer since losing the World Cup semi-final in July to eventual winners England.
More than six months between games seems like a retro throwback – not unlike the playing strips, which seem popular again.
Regardless, Labuschagne’s inclusion in the squad for the three-game series in India and not at home at this traditional time of year seemed like a no-brainer.
After a lean time of it during the English domestic one-dayers with Glamorgan – which he more than made up for during the County Championship – Labuschagne finished the state one-day cup for Queensland sixth on the leading run-scorers list and as one of only eight players to top 300 runs for the series. He was the only one of them to do it at better than a run-a-ball.
(Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
So with Glenn Maxwell left out after his lean World Cup and his break from the game at the time the squad to India was announced, Labuschagne’s inclusion shocked no-one.
Nor did the news on Tuesday evening that he’d been selected for the first match of the series, becoming Australia’s 229th ODI player and having his cap presented to him at the Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai by Steve Waugh.
What we don’t know for sure is where he was going to bat. He was padded up while David Warner and skipper Aaron Finch went about their record opening partnership in reply to India’s 255, but so too was Steve Smith.
It’s entirely expected that the two next batsmen in would have the pads on at any given point.
But while Labuschagne was listed at No. 4 at the toss, plenty of live scorecards – including ESPNcricinfo and the host TV broadcasters in India – had Labuschagne coming in at the fall of the first wicket, as he does for the Test team.
Both could still be true.
“There is a fair chance Steve Smith will bat No. 3,” stand-in coach Andrew McDonald told AAP.
“The top three fall into Warner, Finch and Smith.
“And then the conversations start about how we will go through the middle and what balance team we want to play.”
When you look at Smith’s ODI average of 52.72 at No. 3 as opposed to 35.61 at No. 4, that seemed like a reasonable position to take.
But with Warner and Finch coasting to the target unbeaten and inside 38 overs, we’ll need to wait until Game 2 in Rajkot on Friday evening (AEDT) to find out for sure where Smith and Labuschagne will bat.
(Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
And the status of the match when the first wicket falls may still dictate things. If one of Finch or Warner fall early, then Labuschagne might be preferred, while Smith is probably more likely to get up to the required tempo and run rate if the opening stand is profitable.
But wherever they bat, Labuschagne’s inclusion is a good thing. Having that core of Warner, Labuschagne and Smith carrying through to the one-day format can only strengthen the platform laid down by the top order.
The team list had Ashton Turner, Alex Carey and Ashton Agar following in Game 1, but this middle order is where the variety can and will be provided.
Peter Handscomb and D’Arcy Short are in India and are different styles of players if the extra bowling options provided by Turner and Agar aren’t required in either of the remaining games.
Maxwell and Stoinis’s Big Bash League form – and Mitch Marsh, for that matter – is such that they’ll be well and truly in the frame when the next limited-overs squad is selected. Any combination of those three could easily slot into a more fluid, horses-for-courses middle order.
Australia’s pace attack looks to pick itself and it feels like the top order is being positioned the same way.
And it’s hard to see how stability can be anything other than good.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
To an extent openers probably need to least flexibility. They know they walk out from ball 1, so they can always just play their way. Middle order players need the flexibility to be able to build an innings if early wickets are lost, or get on with it quickly if they don’t come in until late on.
matth
Roar Guru
Absolutely. People like Handscomb, or Clarke before him are not as common these days. Maybe Renshaw who’s batting in the middle order in the BBL or Burns might take the reins, but I’m not seeing much
Tom
This season was the first time he has batted at 3 for Qld in the 50 over matches. Always batted 4 prior to that. Maybe the selectors actually used the most recent One Day Cup results to make their decision? Handscomb was massively outplayed by Marnus in that tournament. Handscomb only managed 216 runs in 6 innings, Marnus made 364 from his 6…
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
That’s likely to be a fair way off. He’s not that young himself. If Warner and Finch both play at least until the next ODI World Cup, then it’s probably more than likely others will come through in that time. ODI openers has never been an issue for Australia though. For the last few years the issue has been that most of our best ODI batsmen have been players who are best as openers. It’s the middle order that’s more the issue.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Yeah, whether he can bowl or not he needs to be working on his bowling and bowling in domestic matches. It is common that domestic sides often play more bowlers than international teams. Often coming down to who is available and having less options. (Like the Thunder playing with 8 bowlers because they simply don’t have any more decent batsmen). NSW often play 5 specialist bowlers in Shield matches, meaning an allrounder like Henriques simply isn’t needed to bowl. Unfortunately this hurts the chance for these sorts of players to bowl lots in domestic cricket which they need to do in order to have a chance of playing international cricket as allrounders.
matth
Roar Guru
Good job little buddy.
matth
Roar Guru
I'd say even if Turner can bowl again he'd be pretty rusty and will need plenty of work in the nets. He wasn't a superstar bowler before either, despite the name.
Paul
Roar Guru
spot on Matt and as we've sen over the past few decades, it's very easy to learn habits in short form cricket that simply don't work in Tests.
matth
Roar Guru
Stoinis might end up actually being one of our openers once Finch/Warner are done.
matth
Roar Guru
Marnus’ biggest challenge will be that his test game is very much built around leaving the ball. He has an excellent domestic 50 over record however, but what I’d really hate is for him to return to ‘bad habits’ that saw him doing very well for QLD with the white ball, but struggling in the longer format.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Yes, with how early the squad was picked I don't think they had any option to include Marsh or Maxwell. Marsh still hadn't fully returned after smashing his hand, and Maxwell was yet to play a game after his mental health break. So at that time neither could really be considered. The squad was picked very early though. I was surprised at the time it was announced that it was announced so early. Leaving it for after the first couple of weeks of BBL mightn't have been a bad idea. But that being said, both Maxwell and Marsh could probably benefit from just having a full BBL rather than flying away for a few ODI's in India anyway.
matth
Roar Guru
I certainly see Turner as a stop gap option while Maxwell and Marsh are more likely to come back in. But due to Maxwell's recent illness it certainly made sense to leave him at home for as summer and Marsh came back to form after his self inflicted injury after the side was picked. But you definitely could see Turner making way.
matth
Roar Guru
And yet it's three and a half years away. to me that's plenty of time for natural injuries and attrition to allow us to try new players. in fact there is a good chance that the players you want to experiment with now won;t even be the best young players in two years time, others will come through. To me I think that building on our platform since England as Langer rebuilds the team ethos and aura is more important right now. Sandpaper was still less than two years ago.
matth
Roar Guru
I believe we keep Warner and Finch and hope they make it to the next World Cup. They are statistically possibly our best ever opening combination and that gets even better in Asia. And if one of them falls by the wayside, it appears to be a heck of a lot easier to find a new top order ODI player than a middle order player.
JamesH
Roar Guru
Read my reply below to Dinky, Brett. I'm not suggesting Labuschagne doesn't have the ability. My annoyance is that he's pushed out a player who was apparently seen as a better option less than 12 months ago, and performed when given the opportunity. Now, on the back of some excellent test knocks and one Marsh Cup, a top 3 batsman has jumped a middle order player who had gone a long way to proving his ODI credentials? Hmmm.
JamesH
Roar Guru
It's a pretty convincing reason to play him at 4 if (a) he's been batting at 4 and (b) we don't already have another guy who was succeeding in the middle order in 2019. Except neither of those things are true. This isn't a dig at Labuschagne or a suggestion he doesn't have what it takes. It's a query about why Handscomb needed to be dropped in order to make way for him. Surely, as a basic principle, you don't drop someone who has been performing? Handscomb should never have been omitted from the WC squad originally. He was just about our best batsman across the back-to-back series against India early last year, and only got pushed out by the return of Smith and Warner. Now that S Marsh and Khawaja (and Maxwell) are both gone from that group, logic says he should have been a lock for the first ODI but instead he made way for Turner and a debutant. It just doesn't make sense to me.
soapit
Roar Guru
i just think we're not looking at the specialist short formers as much as we should in favour of some of the long term performers at test level and came up short at the world cup as aresult. It just has that bit of a 90's feel about it.
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
Wouldn't mind at all to hear that once in a while :laughing:
Kopa Shamsu
Guest
No relations at all. Only that poor guy happens to be me. :laughing:
Dinky
Guest
Actually, of the 3 previous 50-over domestic tournaments in Australia he’s played in (he missed the one before last year because he was in the UAE with Aust), in two of those, he won Player of the Tournament, while he was Queensland’s second top scorer in the third. So his 50-over form is sensational. I’m not sure any other current player has won player of the tournament twice. This season he was also one of only two batsmen in the top 10 run scorers in the Marsh Cup to have a strike rate of over 100. He also played well in 50-over matches for Aust A v Sth Africa A and India A last year (2018) in the UAE. Sounds like a pretty convincing reason to play him at no.4 in the ODI team, I would have thought!