Australian Cricket: Depth Chart

[happy_eagle]

Thought it would be an interesting exercise to see exactly where and how much depth Australia has in test cricket. With tours of India and Englandx2 in the future, we should be aiming to put the best 11 on the field at all times, but this may not always be the case. You need a good string of replacments ready, and I think for the first time in years, we have this


Opening Batsmen
Ed Cowan - Compliments Warner well
David Warner - Is becoming more consistent
----------------
Rob Quiney - Opens for Victoria, so if we had to bring in another opener, he would probably be used
Chris Rogers - Will not be looked at you can guarantee, but is probably the next best
Mark Cosgrove - As above

Overall: Doesnt look that strong, but the fact is that if any of Cowan or Warner got injured, we would probably just promote Watson or Hughes up the order instead of bringing in someone new. Khawaja could also be used as an opener. There are guys like Maddinson and that young fella from Victoria who will be developed as openers in years to come post Cowan. 5/10

Middle Order Batsmen
Phill Hughes - Looks more confident than he did 2 years ago
Michael Clarke - Say no more
Michael Hussey - Has been in good enough form to remain in the batting lineup
-----------------
Usman Khawaja - Next in line if either Hughes or Hussey fail in the long term. Is capable
George Bailey - Captain of the T20 team afterall, would probably get a look in after Khawaja
Alex Doolan - Purely on domestic form, he would have to be in line if it came down to that
Aaron Finch - Expect him to play more short form cricket this summer, and a good showing there could help

Overall: I think that our middle order batting depth is quite strong. Clarke and Hussey are usually durable and entrenched in 4th and 5th. If even two of those three got injured or fell out of form, I would be more than confident in Khawaja coming in, or even Bailey. There are also guys like D.Hussey and Klinger that could be used as backup if the selectors prefer experience over age. 7/10


All Rounders
Shane Watson - Providing he can manage bowling and batting, he is the best all rounder we have
----------------
Glenn Maxwell - Really should only be seen as a injury replacement for Watson at this stage
Steve Smith - Long term would like to see him earn a spot in the team on form
Moises Henriques - Probably wont be considered, but is one of the better pure all rounders we have


Overall: Not the strongest backup on paper, but in reality we wouldnt really be looking to swap Watson for another all rounder if he were to go out, we'd probably either carry an extra batsmen or an extra bowler. Having said that I think that Maxwell and Smith could be solid contributors if called upon as all rounders. 6/10

Spin Bowlers
Nathan Lyon - Probably not ideal, but is the best option we have at the moment
----------------
Michael Beer - Could get a shot in India on turners. Has gone backwards since his test debut
Cameron Boyce - Way to young to be pushed into a test match at this stage, but is probably the better choice outside of Lyon/Beer
Jon Holland - Still see him as more of a one day bowler, similar to Doherty.

Overall: Very Little spin depth, shown up by the fact that Lyon is our number one spinner. Nothing against Lyon as he has done well in his career so far, but I feel that the tour of India may make or break him. Until Boyce, Zampa or Holland develop further, we have very little spin depth. 4/10


Wicket Keepers
Matthew Wade - Is slowly being shown up for average glove work. Still the best option though
-----------------
Chris Hartley - Probably the next best backup avaible as a pure keeper. Doesnt provide alot with bat
Brad Haddin - Once again not ideal, but if called upon can pretty much do what Wade does now
Tim Paine - I would love this guy to recapture his form back, but with all his finger injuries, dont see that happening anytime soon.
Overall: I dont think we are in a terrible position with regards to Wicket Keepers, but its not a great situation either. Wades current low level of output could easily be matched by Hartley, Haddin or a fit Paine. We will never see another Gilchrist, but we wont be struggling for a keeper either. 5/10


Pace Bowlers
Peter Siddle - Needs to be the leader of the attack with experience
James Pattinson - When he is fit, he works great with Siddle in tandom
Mitchell Starc - Really close call putting him ahead of others, but he has more scope
----------------
Mitchell Johnson - Could easily slot into the side, especially if his current form is consistent
Pat Cummins - Would Usually slot straight in, but he really cannot be guaranteed to stay fit
Ben Hilfenhaus - Could be useful in England, but I dont see him working his way back in
Jackson Bird - As great as he was against a weak Sri Lanka, he would need further bowler injuries to play
Josh Hazlewood - Probably needs more shield form, similar situation to Bird

Overall: Our Fast Bowling stocks are as good as they have been in a long time. Still need to be playing some of the older guys like Siddle and Johnson until eventually guys like Pattinson, Starc, Cummins and Hazlewood mature in their own right. I think we would be able to effectively cover the loss of any pace bowler in those tours. 9/10


So as you can see there, we are probably in need of more threatening spin bowling options, and a safer pair of gloves. The ideal solution to these two problems is to hope that Boyce develops quickly, and hope that Paine can return to full fitness.
Could also be handy if we devleoped a bit more opening batting depth outside of what is in the current 11 aswell

Thoughts ?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I don't see how a list comprising of Finch, Bailey and Doolan could constitute anything above a 4/10. Finch in particular has been putrid for most of the 4 day stuff.

How does Rogers (and Cosgrove for that matter) get a mention ahead of, say, Davis and Klinger?

Beer has not gone backwards since his Test debut, that's a terrible call.

Just picking out what I believe to be the glaring errors.

 

[Maddhew]

Openers and wicket keepers underrated

 

[Kram]

Whilst not as good as the others I think people sell Hartley short with his batting ability.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Whilst not as good as the others I think people sell Hartley short with his batting ability.

I'd say he's better than the others. Has had a much better career with the bat than Paine.

 

[happy_eagle]

I don't see how a list comprising of Finch, Bailey and Doolan could constitute anything above a 4/10. Finch in particular has been putrid for most of the 4 day stuff.

How does Rogers (and Cosgrove for that matter) get a mention ahead of, say, Davis and Klinger?

Beer has not gone backwards since his Test debut, that's a terrible call.

Just picking out what I believe to be the glaring errors.

I probably rate those batsmen a little high, but if you look at it all of those batsmen have succeeded in some form at international level already (Finch and Bailey with T20 success which is still cricket, and Doolan with a 160 against the number one test side)
Davis hasn't done anything of note for a while, and I mentioned Klinger as a possible middle order batsmen, but in reality he is way to old to be seen as an option
When Michael Beer was selected, he was easily the best spin bowler in the land. He is no longer the best spin bowler in the land, so therefore has gone backwards

 

[Carbine Chaos]

When Michael Beer was selected, he was easily the best spin bowler in the land. He is no longer the best spin bowler in the land, so therefore has gone backwards

I don't think he was the best when selected, but your logic is flawed anyway. Let's use an xbox analogy, and say Beer was rated 77 when picked, with the next being thorne89 with 62. In two years, Beer may have been boosted to 84, but a new bowler popped up with a ranking of 89. There is no reason to suggest one can not improve as a player yet slide down the pecking order.

Beer is a much better bowler now than when he debuted, of that I am certain.

 

[The Passenger]

good thread

depends on whether you're thinking how the selectors are thinking or how you yourself are thinking...

our fast bowling depth is top notch, but as i've said we still need one guy to take over as a leader. siddle has been that man for the summer but it's only five tests old. can he sustain that form? long term it'll probably pattinson or cummins but JP needs to stay on the park before worrying about being the main man, and PC, barring some sort of sheffield shield domination, shouldn't play test cricket for 18 months minimum imo and then he'll need 10ish tests to settle in.

for mine i think our best quick bowling unit for the next 12 months will be siddle, pattinson, bird. i'm still not 100% sold on starc but i'd say the selectors see it as siddle, pattinson, starc. johnson and bird as our two next best options. i really don't know what young faulkner from tasmania has to do to get a shot.

i reckon hilfenhaus has dropped well down the pecking order, especially with the potential emergence of bird. hazlewood has got to develop in shield first imo. the way the squads worked out he should've played in front of hastings, but i'm finding it hard to believe they would have him in front of faulkner, butterworth, cutting (may have been injured at the time?) or even coulter-nile who is not having a great season but is still a hell of a prospect.

the other way is ryan harris? should be back playing first class cricket by the time the season is out but with his run of injuries, and even he himself said playing two tests in a row is going to be a tough ask going forward, it's unfortunate but i don't think the selectors will go back there, especially with the great depth we had...

if i was ranking our quick bowlers right now, this is how i'd have them
alongside how i feel the selectors see them

    my rankings    | selectors
1.  siddle         | siddle
2.  pattinson      | pattinson
3.  bird           | starc
4.  faulkner       | johnson
5.  starc          | bird
6.  cummins        | cummins
7.  cutting        | hilfenhaus
8.  johnson        | hazlewood
9.  hilfenhaus     | cutting
10. butterworth    | coulter-nile
11. coulter-nile   | faulkner
12. harris
13. hazlewood

*possible oversights. i originally forgot hilfenhaus

gets a bit hard from that point especially for the selectors after hazlewood. cutting has been 12th man before and hasn't done anything to fall off the radar so i feel he is next there, coulter-nile was mentioned as a potential in for the MCG by micky arthur so he'd be there abouts, and faulkner has played some T20 and/or ODI's so they know the bloke averaging 22 with the ball in FC cricket exists.

i don't know if they even rate butterworth (they should, especially in certain conditions), and i don't know what they're plans for harris are. i'd like to think hastings has gone right off the radar. the forgotten man copeland has dropped well down as is injured but if things got to the point where we were selecting him, at least we know he wouldn't embarrass himself. another forgotten bloke is clint mckay, who's a bit up and down but could do a job.

there's also a few other young blokes - gannon, mcdermott, putland who aren't the worst floating around and i can't way to see how kane richardson develops - hopefully his performances in the big bash get him more of a run at shield level. he's done well in the two shield games he's played this season.

the queue is very very long, but because there isn't a major gap in talent between the top and the bottom (certainly not much in the top 10-12 for mine), anyone who puts in a good string of performances at shield level will move up the queue pretty quickly.

 

[The Passenger]

also if aaron finch is fourth in line for a middle order spot (career average 29) then we're in serious trouble. joe burns must be in front of him. younger, more first class tons from less games, better average and all round better talent. finch wasn't even selected for victoria about 6 weeks ago. if he gets his head together and sorts out his problems in the longer form then sure he'll be on his way. i think a lot of people are thinking the big bash will lead him back to form but he's dominate short form cricket before and it hasn't translated into long form cricket - maybe he will this time, maybe he won't. hopefully because we all know we are desperate for some batsmen at state level to show some form... but until he finally does that, then he'll finally get the benefit of the doubt from the public.

chris lynn is a huge talent but likewise isn't play shield cricket. has dominated the big bash and hopefully that is a springboard for him getting back in the queensland team and recapturing the form he showed about 24 months ago. put nic maddinson in the same boat. so frustrating.

can't see our batting depth stocks as a 7/10. lucky to be 3/10 imo.

and our keeping depth is great, but we don't seem to have the top end talent. wade, hartley, haddin, nevill, paine. i agree with what you see - we're not gonna have a gilchrist in that lot but if we got to our number 5 keeper (whichever of that lot you feel it is), then we're not gonna be far down on who you would consider our number 1 keeper... similarish situation to our fast bowlers, except the top end talent our fast bowlers is still real good.

 

[Bradesmaen]

You also forgot Gary Putland BT. He's above Starc for me.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

He's above Starc for me.

That's nice.

 

[Bradesmaen]

That's nice.

It is isn't it!

 

[Carbine Chaos]

It is isn't it!

Yep! Haha. I was just being a prick.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Yep! Haha. I was just being a prick.

Hence my reply

 

[The Passenger]

i had putland in that post. mentioned him with gannon and mcdermott. doesn't help that he is 26 so is not as young as some blokes, though it's not as if he is on the wrong side of 30 or anything. he can bowl, has got a good record on a very batsmen friendly wicket and is much more rapid than he looks. probably around the 15th ranked mark for mine, which might sound a bit harsh but like i said the talent is very even and as jackson bird showed you can move up that list very rapidly, and not just move up the queue - you can also jag a spot in the team from nowhere because none of the quicks have permanently locked themselves in to the team the way mcgrath and gillespie did. this is further exasperated by the rotation policy we are currently using so even more potential spots opening up.

think about when pigeon and dizzy were bowling and both were fit, there was only ever one quick bowling spot available, and the selectors (and steve waugh) had a hard on for brett lee so that made it even tougher for the likes of bichel, kasprowicz, clark, tait, williams, reiffel, flemming, bracken, dale, dawes, muller, wright, inness and a host of others. some of those got a crack, some got quite a few cracks, and some didn't break through. a bit like now after mcgrath and gillespie the talent was very very even, and you could move up and down the queue pretty quickly but getting that final step to get a run was the hardest part. i guess that helps guys like mcdermott, putland etc,. who might feel miles away from a run in the test team but there are still very much opportunities for them to get a run if they perform at shield level.

in saying that we need at least one quick to get their average into the lower half of the 20's and lock a position in our best three quicks who's guaranteed selection when fit (barring the "rotation" policy)... Very few great quick bowling units are comprised of three quicks all averaging about 28 to 30 which is currently more or less what we are looking at. they all had AT LEAST one guy with an average below 25 (pattoman currently averages 22 and he is our best bet).

for what it's worth i think the depth we have in fast bowling is just as strong now as it was during our golden age.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I guess I just don't think it should take a long post to say...

Fast bowling depth - very good, obviously.

Spin bowling depth - poor.

Wicketkeeping depth - good.

Batting depth - poor to very poor.

 

[Bradesmaen]

I think our fast bowling depth is very overrated. Some of those guys have played 1 or 2 tests, or none at all. Starc is severely overrated until he plays more NSW cricket. Cummins as well and Hazelwood. Siddle is a plodder, gives it his best but against England Cook will rape and abuse him. Johnson is still Johnson and Hilfy is completely out of sorts.

I'd have our Fast bowling depth at average or just below.

I also think the OP has underrated Hartleys batting. He's moving himself up the chain, in our minds anyway.. unfortunately the selectors will pick Steve Smith as the wicket keeper next.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Siddle...a plodder?

Needs more dragons.

 

[The Passenger]

I'd have our Fast bowling depth at average or just below.

can't agree there, unless you feel our fast bowling depth during the golden era was average or just below.

if you took gillespie and mcgrath out, then we were really bought back to the field, as was evidenced in 2003/04 when lee was leading the attack and i think that was the series bracken got a few tests. macgill was also playing in place of warne during his drug suspension.

i've read from a few people here, on other forums and in print media what would we give to have one of fleming, reiffel, bichel, kasprowicz, lee to lead our current attack and all would be right with the world. but the reality is adding any one of those guys to our current attack wouldn't do a whole lot to improve our current bowling. their performances would be pretty much identical to what siddle, harris, johnson, hilfenhaus, starc and co. would and have put out on the pitch.

also if you're going to call siddle a plodder than pretty much every quick bowler we've put on the park in the past 20 years has been plodder. he's not the greatest, but he's performed pretty well without doing great and hasn't really shown any difference in performance regardless of the opposition or conditions.

 

[Bradesmaen]

can't agree there, unless you feel our fast bowling depth during the golden era was average or just below.

if you took gillespie and mcgrath out, then we were really bought back to the field, as was evidenced in 2003/04 when lee was leading the attack and i think that was the series bracken got a few tests. macgill was also playing in place of warne during his drug suspension.

i've read from a few people here, on other forums and in print media what would we give to have one of fleming, reiffel, bichel, kasprowicz, lee to lead our current attack and all would be right with the world. but the reality is adding any one of those guys to our current attack wouldn't do a whole lot to improve our current bowling. their performances would be pretty much identical to what siddle, harris, johnson, hilfenhaus, starc and co. would and have put out on the pitch.

also if you're going to call siddle a plodder than pretty much every quick bowler we've put on the park in the past 20 years has been plodder. he's not the greatest, but he's performed pretty well without doing great and hasn't really shown any difference in performance regardless of the opposition or conditions.

It was pretty average. We were saved by the fact that we had one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time and the greatest leg spinner of all time playing for us.

All you have to do is look at the guys rolled out in that time for a baggy green...

Paul Wilson, Adam Dale, Matthew Nicholson, Scott Muller, Brad Williams, Simon Young and Shaun Tait.

Awesome depth..

 

[Torz]

It was pretty average. We were saved by the fact that we had one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time and the greatest leg spinner of all time playing for us.

Scott Muller and Bryce McGain were pretty great.

 

[The Passenger]

gillespie played 3 of the 4 tests in 03/04. thought he missed that summer as well... i remember watching lee, macgill and bracken get belted around the scg for 700+... can't remember dizzy bowling.

 

[DaRick]

It was pretty average. We were saved by the fact that we had one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time and the greatest leg spinner of all time playing for us.

All you have to do is look at the guys rolled out in that time for a baggy green...

Paul Wilson, Adam Dale, Matthew Nicholson, Scott Muller, Brad Williams, Simon Young and Shaun Tait.

Awesome depth..

Simon Cook...or Shaun Young?

(Though the last one was only selected because he was in the same country as the rest of the squad at the time)

 

[The Passenger]

Paul Wilson, Adam Dale, Matthew Nicholson, Scott Muller, Brad Williams, Simon Young and Shaun Tait.

Being a bit rough on those guys imo. You're talking a grand total of about 10 tests and they're all good bowlers in their own right (shaun young wasn't close to test quality) and none of them embarassed themselves when they got their chances... they never really theatened regular test selection and managed to jag a test or a tour courtesy of blokes out injured. Tait was probably the only one who had a genuine chance of becoming a regular.

I think you might be expecting a bit too much from those down the pecking order. if you've got ten quick bowlers that you can call upon and do a reliable job, then you've got a very solid base to work with and that's pretty much what we had then and pretty much what we have now imo.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Being a bit rough on those guys imo. You're talking a grand total of about 10 tests and they're all good bowlers in their own right (shaun young wasn't close to test quality) and none of them embarassed themselves when they got their chances... they never really theatened regular test selection and managed to jag a test or a tour courtesy of blokes out injured. Tait was probably the only one who had a genuine chance of becoming a regular.

I think you might be expecting a bit too much from those down the pecking order. if you've got ten quick bowlers that you can call upon and do a reliable job, then you've got a very solid base to work with and that's pretty much what we had then and pretty much what we have now imo.

I pulled those names out to say our depth is as bad as that. Sure they didn't embarrass themselves, but some of them weren't much chop, but they were all decent FC bowlers. That is like our depth now, except we don't have any genuine attack leaders in the team (against high quality sides anyway) to begin with.