- Apr 24, 2013
- 2,714
- 6,961
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Short version: See thread title.
Long version:
Australia is a great position at the moment with 4 proven legit world class pace bowlers. And the best part is that they are decent batsman for tailenders.
Pattinson averages more with the bat than Mitch Marsh did in test cricket when Marsh was being picked as an all-rounder. Now of course, this is misleading and I'm not suggesting that Pattinson is as good with the bat as Marsh by any means. But with Cummins and Starc also being better batsmen than your usual tailender, and neither Hazlewood nor Lyon being complete bunnies, what I am saying is that you've essentially still got the same run-generating capacity as you would with a specialist all-rounder and a more standard tailender batting lineup. It doesn't matter how you get the runs or who gets them, as long as you get them, and the averages across the board for the 5 ensure enough potential for runs.
Playing the 5 bowlers has its obvious advantages, where you can put more pressure on the batting side and better share the workload. It's also especially beneficial with the current side to build on the strengths and hide the weaknesses of Mitch Starc. Starc at his worst gets destroyed by the top order and leaves Australia in big trouble. But even at his worst, he is still invaluable for cleaning up the tail of the opposition. And you want him in the side at his best. With 5 bowlers, if Starc is off his game, you can just use him sparingly against the top order and then set him loose on the tail.
Of course, there is a conservative counter-argument that this leaves the batting too exposed. And it makes sense to be picking elite batsmen in an era where guys like Brad Hodge can't get a game. But in an era where it's mostly under-performing batsman jockeying for position, it's actually not that logical. If you pick a sh*t batsman who makes two low scores, you've essentially just wasted a spot in the side, whereas at least an under-performing front-line bowler relieves the workload of the others and is still a threat to the opposition.
Structure and team balance are important, but you really should be picking your best players if you can. Currently our best players include 5 bowlers. We shouldn't be leaving one of them out to include an extra mediocre batsman, unless conditions are particularly unsuited for 5 bowlers.
The problem of course is that if you pick 5 bowlers and there is a batting collapse - as if that's never happened with 4 bowlers in the side - then there will be hysterical mobs baying for selector blood. But this is why selectors need to grow a pair.
Long version:
Australia is a great position at the moment with 4 proven legit world class pace bowlers. And the best part is that they are decent batsman for tailenders.
Pattinson averages more with the bat than Mitch Marsh did in test cricket when Marsh was being picked as an all-rounder. Now of course, this is misleading and I'm not suggesting that Pattinson is as good with the bat as Marsh by any means. But with Cummins and Starc also being better batsmen than your usual tailender, and neither Hazlewood nor Lyon being complete bunnies, what I am saying is that you've essentially still got the same run-generating capacity as you would with a specialist all-rounder and a more standard tailender batting lineup. It doesn't matter how you get the runs or who gets them, as long as you get them, and the averages across the board for the 5 ensure enough potential for runs.
Playing the 5 bowlers has its obvious advantages, where you can put more pressure on the batting side and better share the workload. It's also especially beneficial with the current side to build on the strengths and hide the weaknesses of Mitch Starc. Starc at his worst gets destroyed by the top order and leaves Australia in big trouble. But even at his worst, he is still invaluable for cleaning up the tail of the opposition. And you want him in the side at his best. With 5 bowlers, if Starc is off his game, you can just use him sparingly against the top order and then set him loose on the tail.
Of course, there is a conservative counter-argument that this leaves the batting too exposed. And it makes sense to be picking elite batsmen in an era where guys like Brad Hodge can't get a game. But in an era where it's mostly under-performing batsman jockeying for position, it's actually not that logical. If you pick a sh*t batsman who makes two low scores, you've essentially just wasted a spot in the side, whereas at least an under-performing front-line bowler relieves the workload of the others and is still a threat to the opposition.
Structure and team balance are important, but you really should be picking your best players if you can. Currently our best players include 5 bowlers. We shouldn't be leaving one of them out to include an extra mediocre batsman, unless conditions are particularly unsuited for 5 bowlers.
The problem of course is that if you pick 5 bowlers and there is a batting collapse - as if that's never happened with 4 bowlers in the side - then there will be hysterical mobs baying for selector blood. But this is why selectors need to grow a pair.