Last week was not a great one for the Aussie T20 squad, beaten pretty comprehensively in the West Indies.
At the same time an England ODI squad was putting Pakistan to the sword. On its own, this would hardly rate a mention, but it was news because the England team was composed of mostly second-string players and a lot of debutants.
The media in Australia jumped all over this and continue to do so. Louis Cameron posted a story on the Cricket Australia website where he bemoaned the lack of depth in short-form cricket.
He wrote: “Consider that a second-string England ODI side swept Pakistan this month”, which is almost the same words as a number of other pundits used in recent days when comparing England’s series win with Australia’s series loss.
(Photo by Kai Schwoerer/Getty Images)
For the record, I fail to see the comparison between an England 50-over team, playing at home, which still had plenty of experience playing ODIs, versus an Australian T20 team, playing in July in the West Indies, but anyway…
The big issue for many people is whether Australia has an issue with depth in short-form cricket, so I’ve put together my second-string XI. My team is one I’d want playing in the 50-over format, though I’m confident it would not be disgraced if it had to play T20 cricket.
I’ve assumed the following players would be in our best ODI XI.
Dave Warner
Aaron Finch
Marnus Labuschagne
Steve Smith
Glenn Maxwell
Mitch Marsh
Alex Carey
Mitchell Starc
Pat Cummins
Adam Zampa
Josh Hazlewood
I’ve also given them a 12th man, Marcus Stoinis, mostly because he seems to play a lot of short-form cricket for Australia and I presume he is a Justin Langer favourite.
My second-string XI is as follows.
Daniel Hughes
Josh Philippe
Usman Khawaja
Travis Head
Josh Inglis
Cameron Green
Sean Abbott
Ashton Agar
Michael Neser
Jhye Richardson
Mitchell Swepson
(Photo by Mark Brake – CA/Cricket Australia via Getty Images)
The other player making up my squad is James Pattinson.
The first thing I want in any short-format squad is versatility. That is, where possible, I want guys who can both bat and bowl, or in the case of Inglis and Philippe, bat and keep.
This side bats down to number ten and it’s a handy side when the number nine has both a first-class hundred and a List A hundred to his name, while the player batting ten has a strike rate of 86.
The versatility doesn’t stop with the ability to bat. This side contains six genuine bowlers, four quicks, a left-arm leggie and a right-arm leggie. Travis Head is also not the worst with the ball and he could easily come on for a few overs mid-innings and give away only five or six runs per over.
If this side were playing in Perth or Brisbane, James Pattinson would come in, most likely at the expense of Ashton Agar and the team would lose little in terms of batting, but gain plenty in terms of raw pace and aggression.
I’m not fussed about silly things like age. Daniel Hughes is 32 and is one of the best one-day openers not to have played for Australia.
He averages 56.88 and strikes at 87.25. He also knows how to bat long, scoring six hundreds (with a top score of 152) and seven fifties in 30 List A games. He’s the sort of player teams can and do build big totals around.
Josh Philippe is a young, exciting hitter who has a real future at the top of the order in white-ball cricket. He’s not had the greatest start to his international career, but with the right coach (Ricky Ponting) to mentor him, he’s the future of the game when Warner and Finch call it quits.
(Photo by Sanka Vidanagama/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The other piece of silliness I don’t understand is why Usman Khawaja is not mentioned more often in both white-ball formats. He’s a very capable ODI player as an average of 42 and a strike rate of 84 would suggest. He’s also shown he can score quickly with a strike rate around 130 in the T20 format.
Khawaja would also captain this team. I like what I’ve seen of his captaincy for Queensland and I am sure he’d be able to step up if asked.
Travis Head is another who is rarely in the conversation when white-ball teams are discussed. Again, I have no idea why, when he strikes at better than 90 in ODI cricket and over 130 in T20s.
Josh Inglis will play for Australia in all three formats, hopefully sooner rather than later.
He is both a very good wicketkeeper and an excellent hitter, striking at 110 in ODI cricket and better than 150 in T20s. More importantly, he averages better than 30 in both formats, which suggests he’s going to be a regular contributor to the team, rather than a hit-or-miss player, who scores well one match, then nothing for a few games.
Cameron Green has a great future as a finisher in ODI, which is why he’s in the order below Inglis. That said, either could easily move up to three or four if the top order got this side away to a flyer.
Green has an excellent technique, which means he can either bat steadily if required, or hit, as we saw after he scored his maiden Test 50.
The nice thing about this batting line-up is the versatility. In white-ball cricket, players need to be capable of batting higher or lower in the order, depending on the circumstances of the game.
In a similar vein, guys need to be able to bat steadily or hit and with this line-up, there are plenty of batsmen who can do both.
One final point: this is a very good fielding side with lots of good catchers for the early overs, a pair of excellent wicketkeepers and some very good throwing arms.
This XII suggests to me the issue in Australia is not about the depth of playing talent, but about who is or is not being considered for selection.
There are three players – Hughes, Khawaja and Head – all good enough to play at least ODI cricket for Australia. Khawaja’s been on the outer since the last ODI World Cup in 2019, Head for even longer and Hughes has not played at all.
Bear in mind too the players who have been left out: Jason Behrendorff, Riley Meredith, Moises Henriques, Ashton Turner, Andrew Tye, Peter Handscomb, Billy Stanlake and Nathan Lyon.
This is a strong, well-rounded team that would take some beating if it came up against international opposition.
It puts to bed the myth that Australian white-ball cricket lacks depth.
Ace
Roar Rookie
Quite right. This is where us cricket lovers have a say and should be comfortable in doing so. I enjoy the interaction . Reading feedback from fellow rookies and pros is always heartening. That's if you are not rude or denigrating others Keep the articles coming in ... I look fwd to them
Ace
Roar Rookie
I think INGLIS should be in any Australian team even purely as a batter. After seeing how he fared in the English competition where he scored two tons and topped the run getters there is no doubt for me. Conversely, Head an awful time . Scored very few runs. Inglis has scored runs in the Shield and BBL and in England...is he now part of the new blood like Green and Pucovski ?
Paul
Roar Guru
It's funny too, that the forms of the game that are the most frenetic, are currently dominated by older, not younger players! I don't understand the "rinse & repeat" approach to short form selections. Guys like D'Arcy Short, Stoinis, Ashton Turner, Matt Wade, etc, seem to be recycled every 12 months, yet none seem to be able to make a go of it. And those guys who are on the outer, are virtually no chance of getting another look in. Dan Christian has been killing it in short form domestic comps but was an afterthought for the West Indies tour.
DaveJ
Roar Rookie
One striking thing about our best white ball teams is that the great majority are in their 30s. By the start of next season, out of Paul’s best XI only Marnus and Zampa will be under 30. No doubt players like Green, Inglis and Philippe have lots of potential, but it’s still largely unproven at 50-over level, given they all average in the low 30s, a lot lower than the likes of Khawaja, Hughes and Head.
Paul
Roar Guru
Agreed, though Head had a very good ODI domestic summer in Australia, Matt and I wanted a tad more experience in there, as well as another bowling option.
Paul
Roar Guru
great to see your contribution David. I love the stats you produced to support the statement that this second XI is "utterly rubbish". I guess at the end of the day it doesn't matter a lot when this is only a fun piece. What will matter is when an England first XI plays an Australian first XI in any format. Then we get to see what "utterly rubbish" really looks like.
matth
Roar Guru
Head is going terribly in England at the moment, to the point of being dropped by his county side. On the other side Inglis may well be the stand out white ball player in England this season. He should definitely be in the World Cup squad.
matth
Roar Guru
I'd add Wade as an extra. I also like the look of Sam Hazlett (apologies for the spelling), although his debut was ridiculously early, and Jack Wildermuth.
Raju Fernando
Roar Rookie
cummins hazlewood should play tests. aus Odi team usman finch marnus warner Maxwell Carey green starc Jason Stanlake zampa aus t20 wc squad usman wade marsh finch warner Maxwell faulkner starc zampa Meredith jason swepson Wes inglis agar
Patrick
Roar Pro
Joel Paris as well, if we're talking about 50-over cricket- when he's not injured of course.
David a Pom
Guest
So you're making an argument about Australia's white ball depth, yet your 2nd 11 is utterly rubbish - doesn't this just prove the point most fans are making? Khawaja and Head are probably the two best bats on that team yet are proven failures at international level. Philippe can't get it off the square in the big league. I'm sorry but England or India's second elevens (and West Indies in T20) would destroy that side, in any conditions.
Paul
Roar Guru
You're right, Tom. I should have included mentioned Heazlett, but if I was choosing a second XI for ODIs, right ow I'd stick with Hughes. That's not to say Heazlett might not blow past him with more matches under his belt. I also don't know if our depth in T20 cricket is as grim as some people are making out. If you look at the names I've put forward in this piece, there are plenty of good T20 bowling options in that XI and that doesn't include guys I didn't pick. Guys like Jhye Richardson went to New Zealand earlier this year and really bowled well. Then there's guys like Khawaja and Handscomb who IMO are certainly good enough to make our T20 team, but haven't been chosen recently. Throw in Inglis and the real talent pool is far bigger than many think.
Paul
Roar Guru
My issue for writing this piece was because people who are paid to commentate about cricket, were comparing an England ODI XI with an Australian T20 XI, playing in completely different conditions against very different opposition and saying Australia lacks depth. No argument in comparison to some other countries, Australia is not the strongest when it comes to T20 cricket, once you get past our best XI. That said, I'm not sure selectors have tried to choose a "next best" T20 XI in recent times, but have tried to see what guys like Phillipe, Sams and Meredith have to offer. Sadly, they underwhelmed in the West Indies, but I still have faith at least a few of them will come good, hopefully sonner rather than later.
Tom
You missed Sam Heazlett. 23 List A matches, 2 100’s and 10 50’s, 1139 runs at 51.77 at a strike rate of 102.89. I know you said you aren’t fussed on age, but at 32 Hughes will be nothing more than a stop gap option once Finch and Warner move on. Heazlett is 7 years younger than someome Dan Hughes so is a far more promising longer term option. I don’t think anyone has been questioning our ODI depth lately though, it’s been the lack of T20 depth and that is absolutely true. The BBL just doesn’t produce international quality players. Also personally don’t see the fuss about Philippe, I have been saying for awhile that his technique will get found out at international level and that looks to be the case so far, as well as in the IPL, not everyone is Steve Smith and can get away with walking across the stumps like he does. Even for WA he finds himself getting out in ways that a lot of those glorified grade cricketers in the BBL can’t get him out.
Paul
Roar Guru
"So the depth is there, just the selectors don’t know?" No the depth is there but the selectors for what ever reason haven't chosen these players in recent times.
Patrick
Roar Pro
I tend to agree on a couple of points: 1. We don't need to panic about a series loss to the West Indies. With players returning for the World Cup, we can expect a much better showing. 2. I agree Australia has very good depth in the 50 over format. Your XI didn't include Handscomb, Heazlett, Ben McDermott, or Joel Paris, which in itself highlights the depth in that format. Considering the limited importance placed on the Marsh Cup, Australia is very fortunate to have such depth- arguably we have more depth than Cricket Australia deserve. I would argue though, that 50-over cricket is different to T20 cricket, where Australia's depth players have struggled. Looking at the squad in the West Indies, I don't think it was overly poorly selected. I'd probably throw in Inglis and Labuschagne, and maybe Jordan Silk for Ashton Turner, but on the whole the players there largely deserved their place. Australia's T20 unit is heavily dependent on Finch, Warner and Maxwell's runs, along with the frontline bowlers of Starc, Cummins, Agar, Zampa, and sometimes Kane Richardson. Depth batsman haven't made much impact, and the likes of Meredith and Sams have been smashed. By contrast, Joe Root can't make England's T20 XI, and Liam Livingstone just came into the side and belted a century at number 5. The comparison between Australia's T20 side and England's ODI side was odd, given the difference in formats. The point is not ridiculous though- England get much more out of their depth players.
Arnab Bhattacharya
Roar Guru
Behrendorff over Neser for me. Another player who’s been unlucky not to play more List A games is Ben Dwarshuis. Taken 12 wickets in seven games and is a handy all rounder
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I don’t know whether the t20 doom and gloom is justified or not, as I don’t follow that pretend strand. However, recent condemnation of our test performances has been well earned as in three of our last 12 tests on three occasions we have lost or drawn tests that should have been won, no excuses permitted. Occasionally dropping a test that should be won is one thing, but 1 in 4 over a period of 18 months is not acceptable. BTW Everything cricket related is everyone's business here on the roar, so never feel guilty about giving your opinion, it is more than welcome.
Paul
Roar Guru
So England misses out on a T20 World Cup semi-final spot? That's a big call, but in that format, certainly very possible. I completely agree about your thoughts around the doom & gloom messaging from more than a few Aussie fans. If any side in world cricket was missing 5 of it's best players, I'm sure they too would struggle against a near full-strength Windies lineup, especially at their place.
La grandeur d'Athéna
Roar Rookie
I know that it is none of my business, but the amount of doom and gloom spelled out by Australian crowd is extra ordinary. When their team wins, their fan disappear. But they are all out with pitch forks when their team loses. I respect the professionalism, but I believe some of the reaction is really over reaction. I mean no disrespect to Pakistani, but their team is and always has been like that, inconsistent. England would have never won with same side against New Zealand, South Africa or us. What makes me wonder is the teams Australia field in every shortest format series are radically, at least three to four players different to each other. Yet they expect to win every match. I wish our fans with over positive mindset could share some of those mentality. West Indies is current world champion and built around this format. I do not think Australia did such bad with the team they had. It should have been three to two if Australia did not manage to lose the first match. I believe they will do fine. I believe Australia, west Indies, New Zealand and we are going to be in semi final.