I'm really worried by the ODI selection trends we've been seeing lately for Aus, in that they seem obsessed with having 5-6 or even more genuine bowling options, leaving the side with incredibly weak batting.Yeah fielding a batting team like that we were never likely to put enough runs on the board.
I'm more interested in the first class matches anyway.
This dates back to well before the last WC imo, the balance of that side was actually very dubious and covered up totally by the fact that Watson and Maxwell were good enough as specialist bats and Starc meant we didn't need that many runs anyway.I'm really worried by the ODI selection trends we've been seeing lately for Aus, in that they seem obsessed with having 5-6 or even more genuine bowling options, leaving the side with incredibly weak batting.
The best ODI sides have been batting heavy. mid-00s Aus had specialist batsmen at no. 7 ffs (eg. Symonds, Clarke, Hussey), and made do with Symonds/Clarke/Lehmann etc, making up the 5th bowler.
IMO this is by far the superior option when compared to packing your side with medium-pace and spin-bowling all-rounders that leave you with a ****ing bowling all-rounder at no. 5 and 6. It just really, really worries me because it doesn't seem as though they're learning from it either.
I think I'd take K.Richardson over Stanlake. The latter's pretty dire in ODIs.At the moment my world cup XI is:
Finch
Warner
Smith
Maxwell
Stoinis
Marsh/Marsh/Short
Carey
Agar
Starc
Cummins
Hazlewood
With Stanlake, Head, Zampa and Lyon on the bench as backups.
I may have been exaggerating. The batting depth in recent ODI teams since Warner/Smith bans have just looked so rank. I mean do you really need Agar when you've got Maxwell and Head? Wouldn't an extra batsman like a Khawaja add more? They never even use Maxwell's bowling lately. He was a damn effective ODI bowler when he was actually used.Where Jedi says "It's the apparent focus on picking 5-6 bowlers first" one would get the idea that they're picking, you know, 5-6 bowlers first. They're not. They're cramming the team with batting all-rounders which is a different thing altogether. Stonis and Head have bowled the fourth and sixth most balls for Australia since the start of 2017. They average over 60. That seems... not good. (Zampa is nested in between them, and averages over 50, the guy who seems to have been anointed his successor in Agar is at 59)
I reckon they'd be winning more games if they did just pick their 5 bowlers first..
(they'd also probably be more winning games if Starc, Haze etc were playing in more of them)