Australia's current default lineup should include 5 bowlers

[Linda Lovelace]

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.

 

[frankrizzo]

My take australia have treated the number six spot with disrespect in recent years and it's cost us games due to having no runs from that spot.


I find it odd you would choose right now to suggest this in a series where the number six who would have been dumped has made vital contributions to both test wins.

The best way to maximise your bowling talent is give them big first innings scores, we need more batting not less particularly with a high quality Indian attack heading this way.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

My take australia have treated the number six spot with disrespect in recent years and it's cost us games due to having no runs from that spot.


I find it odd you would choose right now to suggest this in a series where the number six who would have been dumped has made vital contributions to both test wins.

The best way to maximise your bowling talent is give them big first innings scores, we need more batting not less particularly with a high quality Indian attack heading this way.

While better in the 2nd test, in the first test, Wade and Head scored 90 runs between them. Starc and Cummins scored 86. You're underestimating the runs that our tail can provide and overestimating what our lower order can.

The two series this summer have been thoroughly uncompetitive, so to say their innings have been 'vital' is a massive stretch. Our lower order, while joining in the pile on at times, has still failed to be convincing.

Obviously I'm talking about how we should line up against actual challengers, not how we can best score cheap runs against non-competitive teams. It doesn't really matter what team we select when we can't lose anyway.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Don’t be drunk

You need that genuine bat. Bowlers are handy with the bat they aren’t genuine bats.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

If you have to use the fifth bowler for more than a quick relief effort, you've given up enough runs to need six batsmen.
It is quite rare that none of the top six can provide a few overs.
At least the OP isn't saying "pick an all-rounder". Unless you actually have one, the result is to pick a no-rounder who adds nothing with bat or ball.

 

[Greenstar5]

It is was to happen in Sydney it would be a great talking point. Can't see it happening though. When ever the tail enders are expected to move up the order and make runs it always seems to back fire. At the moment blokes like manus are bowling well too.

 

[cricketnut14]

i've always been a believer of playing your 6 best bats and 4 best bowlers and hope one of the top 6 can bowl a few overs in need.

mitch marsh has had his chances to be that batting allrounder, but can't make the team as a top 6 batsman.

playing the 5 bowlers patto, cummo, starc, josh and lyon means patto more than likely plays as the allrounder @ #7.
when batting @ #7, runs become expected and along with that comes pressure, and not a bonus when batting @ #8 etc.

patto, cummo and starc are all capable #8's.

as a one off test with patto @ #7 yeah maybe , but that means paine @ #6. if bradman was in the team averaging 100, then no problem.

we've found it difficult to find that elusive bowling allrounder with the likes of johnson, lee, harris, warne, gillespie, reiffel, bichel, hauritz as close as we've got, ending up as all handy #8's at best.

 

[4THAWN]

Not for mine.

Not with Paine @ 6 as mentioned above.

If you had 5 top-line batsmen + a wicketkeeper that was actually good with the bat @ 6 then I'd be far more willing to give it a try.

And I'd only ever think this could be a good idea in Australia, you'd need the runs far more than another bowler in England, India etc.

When you already have 3 top line pace bowlers (Cummins, Hazelwood, Pattinson or Cummins, Hazelwood, Starc) then adding the 4th doesn't do too much for me.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I presume this means you want to include 4 quicks plus a spinner. This doesn't really work, if past history is any guide. Bowling 4 quicks you end up falling behind the over rate, and these days teams can be fined and captains suspended, so it is important to keep up. What has happened a few times teams have gone in with 4 quicks is they fall so far behind they have to bowl spinners for a long spell in the final session, which means at least one part-timer. Pressure goes off and part-timers start to leak runs. The captain has 4 quicks in his team but can't use any of them for fear of falling behind the over rate.

So I reckon we're stuck with what we've got. 3 quicks and 1 specialsit spinner. It is a format that works best. If you have a genuine all-rounder then pick them, but otherwise 6 bats, 4 bowlers and 1 wk. It just works.

 

[Linda Lovelace]

Not for mine.

Not with Paine @ 6 as mentioned above.

If you had 5 top-line batsmen + a wicketkeeper that was actually good with the bat @ 6 then I'd be far more willing to give it a try.

And I'd only ever think this could be a good idea in Australia, you'd need the runs far more than another bowler in England, India etc.

When you already have 3 top line pace bowlers (Cummins, Hazelwood, Pattinson or Cummins, Hazelwood, Starc) then adding the 4th doesn't do too much for me.

I do think you raise a good point about Paine. I think if we were picking Alex Carey, we'd be less exposed though (but this is of course just speculation - maybe he would suck).

 

[cricketnut14]

i think the point about 4 quicks and 1 spinner in regards to over rates is irrelevant.
i think you'd find the 4 quicks would bowl the same amount of overs as if their were 3 quicks playing. (eg. 3 quicks, 1 spinner plus a watto/m.marsh type).

i didn't see us playing 7 bats and a keeper when we were blessed with gun batsmen in the 90's.
in saying that you need 20 wickets to win a test match and you'd be silly to go into a test match with 3 bowlers (pray one doesn't get injured early on day 1).

 

[big_e]

Not for mine.

Not with Paine @ 6 as mentioned above.

If you had 5 top-line batsmen + a wicketkeeper that was actually good with the bat @ 6 then I'd be far more willing to give it a try.

And I'd only ever think this could be a good idea in Australia, you'd need the runs far more than another bowler in England, India etc.

When you already have 3 top line pace bowlers (Cummins, Hazelwood, Pattinson or Cummins, Hazelwood, Starc) then adding the 4th doesn't do too much for me.

Yeah, if only we had the keeper with the third highest batting average of any Australian wicketkeeper. What's that guy's name again? Tim Something. Rhymes with gain.

 

[4THAWN]

Yeah, if only we had the keeper with the third highest batting average of any Australian wicketkeeper. What's that guy's name again? Tim Something. Rhymes with gain.

oh, so if he's so good then how many international test hundreds has he scored?

in 2010 Tim Paine averaged 36 in tests.

in 2019 he's averaged 24 in tests.

 

[4THAWN]

I do think you raise a good point about Paine. I think if we were picking Alex Carey, we'd be less exposed though (but this is of course just speculation - maybe he would suck).

agree that Carey @ 6 gives you more confidence in the batting line-up holding up than Paine @ 6.

 

[Woody15]

I think we have one of the best attacks in recent times with the 3 quicks and 1 spinner now so I dont know if there is any need to strengthen it and deplete the batting by moving Paine up to 6. Particularly overseas as well.

In a couple of seasons, if the development of Cameron Green continues to impress, we could have a star all rounder anyway. Fingers crossed he stays fit.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

When I saw the thread title I hated it.

But I went in with an open mind and read what you had to say.

Now I'm a convert to this way of thinking. Makes perfect sense when you really think about it.

Only makes sense with Starc the way he is and a fit and firing Pattinson, though, which is what OP is saying.

Starc is too good against the tail, but a potential liability against the real batsmen.

Patto can cover for him and make some handy runs here and there as well.

The more I think about it, the more I like it.