For the first time in this year’s Sheffield Shield we had a full round of fixtures as Victoria was finally able to be invited to the party.
It was a real mixed bag of matches. There was an instant classic as New South Wales held on to beat Queensland. South Australia and Victoria was tense at times, but ended in a draw, while Tasmania and Western Australia was dominated by the bat and ended in a fairly tame draw.
What have we learned from the last three games in the Shield competition?
Pucovski and Harris make history
The Sheffield Shield has had almost 130 years of history. In that time there have only been five previous partnerships in excess of 400 runs. The previous highest partnership was between Steve and Mark Waugh who scored 464 unbeaten runs together in 1990. The previous best opening partnership was Geoff Marsh and Mike Veletta who put on 431 runs in 1989.
These records were rendered obsolete over the weekend. Marcus Harris and Will Pucovski opened the innings for Victoria in response to South Australia’s first innings and 486 runs later they were finally separated. It was a magnificent display of batting that matched impregnable defence with controlled aggression.
There was no point with their massive partnership where it felt like South Australia were able to retain a measure of control over the game. They balanced easy singles and consistent boundaries.
It’s true that Harris and Pucovski were able to make their runs on a fairly flat pitch against a relatively punchless attack. However, this does negate their tremendous achievement.
Will Pucovski. (Photo: Paul Kane/Getty Images)
There is a reason that only five previous batting pairs have scored over 400 runs together in the Sheffield Shield. There is a reason why Pucovski and Harris have the sixth-greatest first wicket partnership in first-class cricket.
It is really, really hard to maintain that level of concentration over such an extended period of time. Theirs was a truly amazing achievement and we were lucky to have seen such batting excellence.
Joe Burns is under some heat
Australia have long searched for a stable opening partner to play alongside David Warner. Warner has batted with 12 different opening partners since his debut and outside of Chris Rogers, none have been particularly fruitful.
The current second banana to Warner is Joe Burns who played in Australia’s six Test matches during the 2019-20 summer.
Burns has shown the ability to score at Test match level, as demonstrated by his four Test centuries. However, Burns’ career in the baggy green has been defined by an inability to consistently get starts.
In 17 of his 36 Test innings, Burns has scored less than 15 runs. So history has shown that Burns will fail almost half of the time that he goes out to bat in a Test match. For this reason, Burns has struggled to cement himself for an extended period of time within the Test team.
Burns is the incumbent and was ok against Pakistan and New Zealand. As such, it is likely that he will be selected to play against India. However, it is easy to imagine that Australia’s selectors are not overly attached to Joe Burns and will be happy to consider other possible alternatives.
If that is the case, then there was a lot from the previous round of the Sheffield Shield that should make Burns feel very nervous. In addition to Pucovski and Harris’ gargantuan efforts, both Cameron Bancroft and Sam Whiteman scored strong centuries against Tasmania.
Outside of Sam Whiteman, three of those centurions have either played Test cricket for Australia or have been selected in an Australian squad.
At this stage, Burns will play the first Test against India. However, he will be on a short leash. The player to watch for Burns’ position is Pucovski. The young Victorian has never previously opened the batting in first class cricket, but has shown a clear affinity for the role. If Pucovski scores runs in Victoria’s next two games, then his case will be hard to ignore.
Mitchell Swepson plays his best ever game
In my four takeaways from the first round of Sheffield Shield action, I noted Swepson’s excellent start to the season but wanted to see more evidence that he could maintain those performances against better teams in different conditions.
I am entirely on the Mitchell Swepson bandwagon now. Against a high-quality NSW batting line-up, Swepson took his first ever 10-wicket haul in a game. On its own, this was incredibly impressive but there were two factors that made his performance even more remarkable.
Firstly, these were not conditions that were naturally beneficial for spinners. The pitch at Karen Rolton Oval had a lot of grass on day one and didn’t wear a lot later in the game meaning there was little natural assistance for the spin bowlers.
Australia’s best spin-bowler, Nathan Lyon, was also playing on this pitch and could only get two wickets and conceded over four runs per over.
Secondly, in NSW’s second innings, Swepson was bowling in the most challenging circumstances that can face a spin bowler. Swepson was leading a bowling attack trying to defend a small target. In these circumstances a bowler has to tread that fine line between being dangerous and preventing the opposition from scoring easy runs.
Swepson kept that balance perfectly. He maintained a consistent line and length throughout and accordingly only conceded 2.55 runs per over. Yet, Swepson was threatening to the Blues’ batsmen throughout. His performance in the final session of the match was a masterclass.
Mitchell Swepson (Photo by Michael Dodge/Getty Images)
His best delivery may have been one that did not get a wicket. Bowling to Sean Abbott, Swepson unveiled a delivery that was flighted so beautifully that it drew Abbott forward out of his crease.
The rotation on the ball meant that it drifted away to Abbott’s left and spun sharply to his right past Abbott’s groping outside edge. If not for some questionable glovework from Jimmy Pierson this delivery would have delivered a stumping and perhaps changed the result of the game.
If it wasn’t before, it is clear now that Swepson is Australia’s second-best spin bowler. Whilst Swepson is unlikely to play in the Test matches this year, he will play for Australia in the future.
Travis Head’s fighting spirit shines through
South Australia’s last two games against Tasmania and Victoria have felt remarkably familiar for Travis Head. In both matches, Head failed to reach double figures in his first innings as the Redbacks collapsed to a below-par total. In each game Head watched as his side conceded massive first innings deficits.
And on both occasions, South Australia was able to survive due to Head scoring a massive century in the second innings.
These performances by Head demonstrate a very valuable ability for a test-match quality batsman, the skill to compartmentalise your game. Head is the captain of a South Australian team who has struggled throughout its first three games.
There is also the pressure on Head to maintain his spot in Australia’s team despite real pressure from Cameron Green and Will Pucovski. Despite those significant external pressures, Head has been able to score big. These big scores can only occur if a player is able to centralise themselves in the moment and avoid any outside distractions that could negatively influence their performance.
Early in Head’s Test career he made a lot of starts but failed to make the big score. In eight of his first 16 innings, Head was dismissed between 30 and 90. He was playing well but not scoring the runs that his team needed. This suggests that he was unable to maintain the necessary level of concentration throughout their innings.
Head’s last two innings provide hope that he may be developing the mental strength needed to be a high-quality Test match player.
As with Joe Burns, I have little doubt that Head will get the opportunity to start Australia’s series against India. It remains to be seen whether his last two games for South Australia are the signs of a positive change in Head’s mindset, or a mirage for a talented player who has not quite performed at his best.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
Bernie, SKWs SS stats are; 161 @ 34.7. And for those who say that he would have been a great Test captain... His SS record as Vic captain is lousy. 2 from 11.
qwetzen
Roar Rookie
I paid for this product. https://www.tastats.com.au/ cheers
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
These are the draws during Gilly’s career: 3 tests v New Zealand 2001-02, two of them were rain-ruined and would have been crushing wins for us. The one in Perth was a flat pitch and a 5th bowler would not have won it for us – in fact one less batsman and we would not have avoided the follow on. 2 tests v India 2003-04 One was rain ruined, the other a run feast on a flat pitch. In Warne and McGrath’s absence a 5th bowler would not have made a scrap of difference in that Sydney test, holding a few more catches early on the first day may well have. 2004 1 test in India. The final day was washed out with the game evenly poised for a result. 2005 1 test in New Zealand. Rain ruined and the two games that weren’t we won easily. 2005 in England. Both drawn tests this series lost a large chunk of playing time to rain. 2005-06 1 test in Perth on a very flat pitch, a 5th bowler would not have altered things. 2007-08 1 test v India on a flat Adelaide pitch. So 11 tests drawn during Gilly’s 8 year test career, 7 of them due to rain wiping out large amounts of playing time.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Now ya just bein silly … tell me about all these drawn games we would have won with a 5th bowler? When and where did they happen?
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
I didn't have to answer anything from you and common sense would dictate that I wouldn't be suggesting a quasi-allrounder bat #6 for Australia. Get a grip. We have a top opener in Warner, #3 in fantastic form, a world's best at #4 and a variety of good batting options to come in at #5. Our keeper at #7 bats well, 8 & 9 are Cummins and Starc, both can bat. How many 'effin' batsmen do you need? We bat to 9, not enough for you?? You win test matches by taking wickets, that is a point you need to grasp. Your philosophy says that if James Pattinson or a similar quality bowler had a sensational year with the bat, averaging 35odd in the Shield, you'd still pick (with our other batting strength) another specialist bat #6 instead of strengthening the bowling. Thank goodness you aren't an Australian selector. I don't know how far back you go, but Australia had a fantastic period of success when Gilchrist was our keeper. He batted #7 with a test average around 40+ and we had a 6/4 pattern with an awesome bowling attack and some of the best bats in the world. We won so many tests only batting once and all over in 3-4 days. Is that how you like your test cricket?? Let me tell you, if Gilly had batted 6 we would still have won every game we did (bar v Pakis at Hobart) but in a much more enjoyable fashion, seeing our team bat more often and more 5 day games AND, there were a lot of drawn matches and losses we would have won if we had the extra bowler. Plenty of times bowlers stand up and get runs when batsmen fail. Extremely rare to get a batsman suddenly put in a 3for or 5for when the bowlers fail. Australia doesn't need another batsman, we could do with strengthening the bowling attack and variety if/when we have an allrounder good enough because there will be more times we need that than a 6th specialist bat if the others aren't performing. That's reality. I'm done here, cheers.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Finally he (Hayden) came good from early 2000 onwards.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
That was also pretty much Matthew Hayden throughout the 1990s.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
While you might not have mentioned a pretend allrounder, nor did you answer my question as to who represents a genuine one – unless you can do this than you are dealing in fantasy selections.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I did read your post, and NO, 5 batsmen is not enough. Keith Miller was both one of the best six batsmen in the country as well as one of the best four bowlers – in fact he was one of the best TWO bowlers. If he had been neither he would never have had a test career. This is a point you need to grasp.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Never mentioned a pretend all-rounder, you didn't read my post. Also, the 4 bowlers you mention currently for Australia are champs. If you don't have them you'll need an extra bowler. 5 pure batsman is enough. After that you if have a keeper or bowler good enough to bat at 6 this gives you 5 bowlers to win the game. That is the best balance, 6 bats, 5 bowlers and one keeper {so one needs to do two jobs}, end of discussion. You can keep your 6/4 faith, it just an opinion. Rest assured, if Green is taking quality wickets and making good runs he'll get a start over a better batsman for the #6 spot.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Wrong. Greg Chappell said that if 6 batsmen can’t do the job for you than 7 won’t make a difference. He said this on the eve of the Adelaide test v saffies in late January 1994, which South Africa lost to squander their 1-0 series lead going into this 3rd and final test. He was referring to them playing Brian McMillan at 7 (and keeper Dave Richardson at 8) so either he meant that either McMillan should have batted 6 or a more penetrative bowler should have played in his stead in those 8-11 positions …. There is no point picking a bits and pieces player to bat at 6 on the ‘premise’ that he is a 5th bowler if he is not capable of getting wickets at a decent strike rate at test level. Who are you suggesting can fulfill this role right now? Mitch Marsh? His batting is crap, performance wise over his whole test career so far. The Oval last year also represents his only genuine strike bowling performace. Starc, Cummins, Hazlewood and Lyon are quite enough as long as we have six decent batsmen, not counting Paine, who will not constantly let them down as occurred two years ago v India in Smith and Warner’s absence. You are better off having 6 proper batsmen, at least one of whom can provide some change relief for the 4 main bowlers than a pretend ‘allrounder’ who can neither take a decent amount or wickets nor score a decent amount of runs. This idea of 6 batsmen, a keeper and 4 bowlers and it being a bonus if any of the batsmen can bowl is shared by Ian Chappell. Which Chappell is it that supports your idea? Trevor?
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Actually, yes. As the purpose of cricket is to get the other team out and not to score a million runs you need bowlers. Bowlers take wickets, not batters. Best done with the variety provided by around 5 bowlers. Teams have got by with stacking batting which is a negative - try not to lose - strategy. Can work if you have 4 champions but this rare so while you do need to bat to around 7 a genuine al-rounder provides you with solid batting to 6 with a keeper and a 5 strong bowling attack. Evidence of this being the best balance it rife throughout history but one of the best is this example; years ago England came out and lost every match with a 6/4 split and their only win came when they played an all-rounder at 6. As was so accurately said by Chappelli once (and others over time) if 5 batters can't do the job the 6th won't save you. And BTW, Green isn't in the top 6. I've watched a lot of cricket over the years, seen only one test where having a 6th batter was the difference in a win. Seen a lot lost or peter out to draws because of a lack of bowling attack. Also seen a lot of boring matches where way too many runs were scored by too many batters. All rounder give variety, increase winning chances and add to the spectacle.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
No, we need the best six batsmen in the country, the best keeper, and the best 4 bowlers. While there is a higher expectation these days that the keeper can bat a bit, if any of the six batsmen can bowl that is a bonus, as it is a bonus if any of the four bowlers can bat. BUT … the six batsmen need to be good enough on that skill alone first, as is the case with the bowlers. So are you saying, that even if Green is one of the best six batsmen in the country, because he is not bowling atm, then he misses out to a bits and pieces ‘allrounder’ who can neither bat nor bowl as well as him, just because we supposedly need an ‘allrounder’?
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Well, until he is in the top 6, which needs a bit of time to establish, he needs something else in his kit to get to the front of the line and push an established player out. Plus, if we want to go up level we need a quality allrounder, not another batsman.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Shellbell, do you mean he (Wade) only responds to the pressure of his place in the side being in jeopardy? I agree, and Graeme Wood was much the same.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Why does Green have to wait until he's bowling to bat at 6 if he's one of the best 6 batsmen in the country?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Shellbell, Bit harsh on Burns as he doesn’t have Watson’s fetish for stuffing up in the 90s either … there was a great stat in the article though about have a poor strike rate in getting starts though.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Australia only played 5 tests in 2019-20. Two against Pakistan and three against New Zealand. Great stat about Burns and starts ... those are the sort of stats that actually mean something.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Shane Warne's stats in shield cricket were pretty ordinary.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
To explain how I got a non-test FC average of 40, I simply deducted his test record from his overall FC record on cricinfo. Nathan Lyon has taken 576 FC wickets for 19,732 runs, and 390 test wickets for 12,320 runs. So that leaves 186 non-test wickets for 7,412 runs, an average of 39.85. I don't have access to Nathan Lyon's Shield records, so if you say it's 35.7 he must have performed even worse in tour games, Australia A, etc. Doesn't change my original point which is that he performs much better in test cricket than Shield cricket.