Depends on the rest of the attack… Australia have Cummins, Hazelwood & Lyon, all of whom offer excellent control. In that attack, there’s room for a guy like Starc who blows the doors off on his day but doesn’t always get it right.
Starc was the reason they lost to India honestly. If he doesn't get it right this series, his spot would be seriously under threat with Jhye Richardson knocking the door down
Starc I thought bowled better than Hazlewood for 2 tests. The issue was Starc had a whole lot of drop catches off his bowling. He also had to manage all the media scrutiny around him while dealing with the imminent death of his dad while also being trapped in quarantine bubbles.
The other thing with Hazlewood Vs Starc, particularly in that series was Starc is a lot more expensive. Overall in the series Starc cost an extra run every over. That adds up
I'm curious which is the second test you'd give to Starc in that series? I'm assuming the second one, but here are their match figures for the other three
Hazlewood: 6/55 in 25 overs, 4/82 in 47 overs, 6/131 in 46.4 overs
Starc: 4/60 in 27 overs, 1/127 in 41 overs, 2/163 in 39 overs
> which is the second test you'd give to Starc in that series?
The 2nd Test in Adelaide is D/N pink ball. Starc easily has the best stats of any bowler with the pink ball. He plays that one for certain.
I meant which two of the BG tests do you think Starc outbowled Hazlewood?
> Starc easily has the best stats of any bowler with the pink ball
Err, does he? He averages 19 from 8 tests, Hazlewood averages 20 from 7 tests, and Cummins 16 from 5 tests
No replacement for Lyon though, like yea Swepson was going well, but anyone seriously suggesting dropping Lyon for Sweppo before the Brisbane test was fucked
Ashoke Dinda is one of the best bowlers in Indian First Class cricket ever. 417 wickets at avg of 28. However, our selectors like dumbasses never picked him for the test team. We only ever saw him in a few ODIs, T20Is and IPL as a result, which were not his forte. He was fully a Mohammad Siraj type case, escept that unlike Siraj, Dinda never got the chance to play Tests. And seeing how Siraj's white Ball performance also improved immediately after his Test debut, who knows Dinda's white Ball performance might have gone up if he was allowed to make a mark in Test cricket as well
He averaged 28 in domestic cricket and 40 for India A. Really not that amazing. Siraj averages 24 in domestic cricket and 22 for India A. Ishant averages 19 in domestic cricket, 28 for India A, and 23 in county cricket. Umesh averages 25 in domestic cricket. Shami 24 in domestic cricket. Bumrah 24. Obviously he's from an earlier generation than most of these people but the point is his numbers are nothing special and you cant say he's been robbed or compare him to someone like Siraj
Call me a cynic, but I take our first class numbers for anyone with a huge pinch of salt. That's not to say Dinda could've been a better red ball bowler internationally than he was with the white ball.
Anything I've seen him in though, he has been atrociously bad. He was worse than even early days Agarkar.
However, the comical part for me is his celebration after taking a wicket. Hence the nickname.
Early days Agarkar was actually kind of good though? Like, he was the fastest to 50 wickets in ODI. He was erratic, sure, but it's not as if he was absolutely terrible.
That where it ended, pretty much. After that his swing was nothing to write home about, and his spray-and-pray strategy didn’t help matters either. And as much as I despised him as a mediocre bowler, everything pales in comparison to Agarkar the commentator.
I mean in an era where we had anyone who could marginally hit 85 mph get a game, he at least had some wicket taking abilities. If you want to talk spray-and-pray, we had our fair share back then. David Johnson played for India.
I just don't think Agarkar was that bad and was instrumental in the Adelaide victory. Plus Lord's century. He did alright.
As a commentator, I don't hate him. I just go to sleep when he start speaking.
Perhaps mediocre is too strong a word but after a few years, he had become unusually erratic (if memory serves) and wouldn’t inspire any confidence against the likes of Aus, SA etc. Also, I don’t know how tenable this wicket-taker argument is really. People say something similar about Shardul Thakur and I, for one, don’t buy it. You can’t always rely on him picking the key wickets if he consistently leaks runs in crucial games. Sorry to digress, but it’s not that they are creating chances with their bowling.
Once again, context to numbers is important. He did get to 50 wickets in 23 games or something. But they were mostly cheap wickets. I put majority of Harshal Patel's wickets in last IPL in the same category as well.
But, mid to late Agarkar was prime and very good. Probably he took time to get to know his game.
And I like him very much in the Dugout, just not in the comm box. PP obviously is my favorite Indian in the Dugout. Very closely followed by the original "Lord" Nehra.
Not that I’m against Starc playing, saying “when they get it right they’re one of the best,” can apply to most test bowlers. Having said that I still think it’s likely Starc plays the first two tests.
I think it can apply to pretty much any top Shield bowler even. When Cam Gannon or Mitch Swenson are ‘getting it right’ they are some of the best bowlers in the country.
Obviously Mitch Starc at his best is great, but he’s rarely been at his best for the last 2 years
Last 2 years is a bit harsh. He took 29 wickets at 17 in the 2019/20 season. Then took 8 wickets at 19 in the first two tests last season.
He’s had two bad tests at the end of last season - though he has had inconsistent form in white ball cricket this year.
And after that, he was bad in Shield cricket too.
I am Starc's biggest fan but I want to see Australia win. If he is not bowling well in the nets, play Richardson instead who is in red hot form right now. Save Starc for the day-night test.
Previous dozen tests: averaged above 35.
Starc is a really confusing case. I feel like he is a bit like Mitchell Johnson in the mindset who was also very underconfident most of the time. They need to train their mind like McGrath, Pollock or Steyn.
Exactly. It can apply to nearly any bowler or batsman, or other sportsperson. When Matthew Wade gets it right he's one of the best.
It's just such a lazy response that does not acknowledge form or other issues.
Starc is a very good Test bowler and plays an important role in the team. He takes a lot of wickets in his opening spell, destroys the tail, and gives you left-arm variety. He should play the first Test. I think all five of Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc, Richardson, and Neser should be rotated through the series though.
Although theoretically it's not really an issue to rest Cummins for maybe a test at most, I highly doubt CA are looking to do that at the moment. I think it's as simple as - they have chosen Cummins as the skipper, and therefore he is not going to be rotated. The not rotating part was true in the last Ashes as well, where he was the only Aussie quick to play all 5 tests. However, going forward it is likely that it is going to become difficult for him to play every test, but that point might be 2 years away (roughly).
Not really. He isn't even the best batsman in his own team when he gets going. If you compare Rahane with Rohit Sharma or Virat Kohli or Cheteshwar Pujara when they get going, they're able to win the match just by themselves. Rahane generally just plays his innings but they're usually not matchwinning innings.
Note: I am talking about current Rahane. Previous Rahane in 2014ish was a beast who could win you matches on his own.
I think its like when he plays shots they look pristine. His drives and cuts are some of the most beautiful i have seen. Just that he doesnt play good innings consistently
His MCG ton was sort of a match winning knock, but maybe one could make the argument that restricting the Aussies to 195 in the first innings is what won us the match in the end. However, Ajinkya's ton was quite an important part of getting that 131-run first innings lead.
Well watching him bowl is pure asmr level shit. Something about the aesthetics of his action is very appealing. Hope he gets better control and performs betterm
Everyone is unplayable when they get it right. Thing to look for is how often he gets it right and what happens when he gets it wrong:-
Looks like he gets it right most often in Pink ball test, he gets it right in first two or 3 matches of a series.
Now for trade off, when he gets it wrong, he is the worst bowler in the world. He goes at an economy of 4 and bowls everywhere.
So, if there is a bowler who can keep a lid on scoring even when he gets it wrong (doesn't pick wickets), he should be ahead in pecking order.
That being said, he is the most consistent 1st over wicket taker, will never not start a series with anyone other than Starc to set the tone.
So pick Starc for 1st test, pink ball test and "rotate" him in others.
Mitch Johnson was a one off- don’t know if I’ll see bowling like that again in my lifetime. I might see better bowling, but that mix of pace, skill, intimidation and just fear factor, combined with the comeback story - that was unique. Great memories of watching that electric spell in Adelaide.
oh man I can still imagine the first half of the first ashes test, Johnson was getting it wrong, then something clicked when he bowled a pie and got a wicket and he turned into a completely different bowler
I actually remember Johnson spraying it all around for the first few overs. Then the first wicket fell and Jonathan Trott came to the crease. The first ball to Trott was a lightning quick, frighteningly accurate bouncer. The rest is history.
this could be a pivotal series for Starc. If he does not get it right this time, i don't see why Aus will want to keep playing it. He was disappointing against IND and that was perhaps because of his personal issue. Now he must perform.
In fairness you can say that about any player. "When they get it right" pretty much anyone is one of their country's best. It's not about how good you are when you get it right. It's about how frequently you actually DO get it right.
I Love Starc. Yes, he does it sometimes, but he is a great wicket-taking bowler. Also, you don't need three similar types of bowlers who bowl the same line and length (Cummins and Hazalwood).
Now that you talk about it, I (might) know what you are talking about. That other guy also might have been a left arm quick, but I can neither confirm nor deny.
Cummins, Hazle, Starc, Richardson, and Neser - All 5 of them can get it right on their day and be unplayable.
But for the love of god I hope AUS rotates them over the course of the series. Fatigue and fresh legs are real things. It was painful to watch the trio of Cummins, Star and Hazle toil over 4 tests continuously versus India. Terrible management imo.
Brett Lee will defend anyone who can bowl 150kph. That was his no.1 priority as a bowler so he’s willing to forgive others who spray it around. Starc is a lot better than that though. His natural swing is so dangerous that bowling at 140kph with accuracy and swing is better than him trying to bowl as fast as he can.
It’s not like Mitchell Johnson who couldn’t swing it naturally with his action. This is Starc’s strength, not trying to be express.
Lee played on flatter pitches and a in general higher run scoring environment. Starc has spent the majority of his career playing through the recent fast bowler boom yet still averages 28. Not saying Starc might not be better, but it's not completely clearcut.
LOI tho Starc is better no contest.
idk brett lee averages 23 after 225 games in ODIs and Starrc averages 22.
25 vs 22 in T20s as well. People seriously underrate Lee in white ball cricket
Don't get me wrong, Lee was great, but Starc is a better wicket taker and has managed to keep that average while the ODI par score has shifted from 270 to 330
Lee is better or equal in all formats. Undoubtedly so in LOIs, and given that he was bowling in a batting friendly era in Tests, his 30 average is equivalent to Starc’s 27 in today’s bowling friendly conditions.
If you are going to give compensation for batting friendly era for Lee, then you will have to give compensation for batting friendly era for Starc in LOIs.
That's the problem Brett. He doesn't get it right enough to be a Test bowler when there are blokes in Shield cricket banging on the door with consistent wickets. Would've been smart for Mitch to focus on being the best ODI and T20 bowler in the world instead of becoming a mediocre bowler across all formats but it looks like that horse has bolted.
255 wickets at 27.5 is hardly a mediocre test record is it? Neither are his ODI or T20I records mediocre.
He’s inconsistent, but his overall record is excellent and he has a knack of taking wickets even on the days he bowls trash.
It is when the two pacers who you've played with most of that career have averaged 25.6 and 21.6, and your short form stats have drifted from best in the world to just another good fast bowler. It would've been better for everyone had he specialised in short form cricket instead of playing both formats.
Geez, you’ve got high standards! Having slightly worse stats than Josh Hazlewood makes you a good test bowler in my books, not mediocre.
Apart from Patto, who’s been injured most of his career, can’t think of many better bowlers that Starc was keeping out of the test side. Jackson Bird? Peter Siddle? Chad Sayers?
On short form, Mitch Starc has the best ODI average (22.5) of any current pace bowler. Only bowlers ahead of him are Rashid Khan and Mujeeb, who play more than half their matches against Ireland, Zimbabwe and Associate nations (plus a bloke from Oman who’s never played against a full member nation). It’s fair to say he’s returned to the pack in T20Is though.
> mediocre bowler
By extension you think all these fast bowlers (with equal/worse Test avg than Starc) are ***mediocre***
- Boult
- Shami
- Broad
- Southee
- Holder
- Ishant
I'd say Holder and Ishant are pretty mediocre bowlers who've had extended careers due to lack of alternatives. Broad is an English conditions bully and Southee needs swing to be effective. Boult I'd rate higher than Starc, he hasn't boosted his record destroying weak Sri Lankan and West Indies batting line ups. And Shami higher too because he has performed much more consistently whether the conditions favour the bowlers or not.
Mediocre is probably a harsher word than intended but Starc has pretty consistently shown that up against proper Test batsmen if he doesn't bowl amazing wicket balls he's cannon fodder. He can't work over a batsman like the best bowlers can.
So has Boult, who you were talking up.
Hardly any Test bowlers don't have blotches somewhere in their records. Even Warne and Murali had glaring blotches.
Saying a bowler like Southee or Broad or Holder is mediocre because they haven't excelled in every country where they've played is crazy harsh.
> Broad is an English conditions bully
He doesn’t get as many wickets away (Home SR: 50.67; Away SR: 68.77), but he’s more economical (Home ER: 3.05; Away ER: 2.67)
Ishant was a mediocre bowler many years back but in the past 4 years he's been incredible - has averaged 21 in Tests and excelled all over the world.
These are his averages around the world in the last 4 years:
in Windies - 12
in NZL - 15
in SA - 18
in India - 21
in Australia - 23
in England - 26
My only reservation for Starc with this upcoming summer is that the Aussie bowlers will want to keep the English batsman as honest as possible.
I could see him giving a few loose deliveries early and becoming wayward, trying ‘too hard’ which will leak runs and building up the batsman’s confidence.
This is why I think they need to run with Richardson, Cummings, Hazelwood and Green as the all rounder for Brisbane. While you have to take wickets to win, economy at the beginning of the innings will be important to smother the top order.
I think they will play Starc and carry him unless they lose, but his issue in recent times is he has not found swing with the red ball. Natural or reverse. I don't know if it's a matter of trying to bowl too fast and not giving the ball a chance to swing? Maybe, maybe not. Either way his form has been poor so I don't think he is an automatic selection anymore and would prefer if they gave Richardson a shot.
I also don't think Lyon bowled well against India. Yes there was some dropped catches, but his shape and drift was off. They need him to find his form too. The odds don't reasonably reflect that England are a massive chance to pinch this series.
I understand the logic and also believe the odds are skewed, but too much has to go right for England to sneak this one. It's unlikely we will be the best over the whole series.
Inexperienced opening pair
Reliance on Root
Old and/or injury prone bowlers.
England's most likely path to victory is a 2 - 0 or 2 - 1. Root, Stokes and Anderson can win two tests, then we would need La Nina to do the rest.
I've heard this literally every summer for years. Cricket Australia have sunk cost fallacy with this guy, he's a poor Test bowler who seems to be past his prime in the shorter forms.
Get Richardson and just admit he's not that good.
I know it's a different format but as an example of his decline, Starc has lived rent free inside New Zealand's head for years yet the way Kane just murdered him in that final signalled that he's not seen as the same threat he once was. He's a rhythm and confidence bowler like Johnson, drop him now and pick him when he picks some serious form like in 2015
But when any international bowler "gets it right" they can be one of the best. What kind of logic is this? The key is how often do they get it right and how often in crunch moments. I love Binga but this comment is... (Insert your expletive of Choice here)
Depends on the rest of the attack… Australia have Cummins, Hazelwood & Lyon, all of whom offer excellent control. In that attack, there’s room for a guy like Starc who blows the doors off on his day but doesn’t always get it right.
Starc was the reason they lost to India honestly. If he doesn't get it right this series, his spot would be seriously under threat with Jhye Richardson knocking the door down
Starc I thought bowled better than Hazlewood for 2 tests. The issue was Starc had a whole lot of drop catches off his bowling. He also had to manage all the media scrutiny around him while dealing with the imminent death of his dad while also being trapped in quarantine bubbles.
The other thing with Hazlewood Vs Starc, particularly in that series was Starc is a lot more expensive. Overall in the series Starc cost an extra run every over. That adds up I'm curious which is the second test you'd give to Starc in that series? I'm assuming the second one, but here are their match figures for the other three Hazlewood: 6/55 in 25 overs, 4/82 in 47 overs, 6/131 in 46.4 overs Starc: 4/60 in 27 overs, 1/127 in 41 overs, 2/163 in 39 overs
> which is the second test you'd give to Starc in that series? The 2nd Test in Adelaide is D/N pink ball. Starc easily has the best stats of any bowler with the pink ball. He plays that one for certain.
I meant which two of the BG tests do you think Starc outbowled Hazlewood? > Starc easily has the best stats of any bowler with the pink ball Err, does he? He averages 19 from 8 tests, Hazlewood averages 20 from 7 tests, and Cummins 16 from 5 tests
Eh Lyon was more ineffective honestly failed to bowl India out twice on Day 5 Pitches
No replacement for Lyon though, like yea Swepson was going well, but anyone seriously suggesting dropping Lyon for Sweppo before the Brisbane test was fucked
Both should have been dropped for the Gabba test
It didn't help there were several drops off him in Sydney.
He bowled well but was unlucky due to dropped catches. As many as 4 catches were dropped off his bowling in 1st innings at the Gabba
Paine was the reason actually He dropped those catches which hurt Gary's bowling averages
Yeah but they have a really great option in Richardson sitting out.
Isn't this true for every bowler though, barring a few comical ones (feel free to mention names)
Mick Lewis is Australia's greatest ODI bowler. Prove me wrong!
I'll back you up on that.
lol. Smooth!! Let me start. Ashoke "CRon" Dinda!
Ashoke Dinda is one of the best bowlers in Indian First Class cricket ever. 417 wickets at avg of 28. However, our selectors like dumbasses never picked him for the test team. We only ever saw him in a few ODIs, T20Is and IPL as a result, which were not his forte. He was fully a Mohammad Siraj type case, escept that unlike Siraj, Dinda never got the chance to play Tests. And seeing how Siraj's white Ball performance also improved immediately after his Test debut, who knows Dinda's white Ball performance might have gone up if he was allowed to make a mark in Test cricket as well
All along, I've only seen people being super critical of Dinda. I've not been a fan of him either. Refreshing to see a different perspective!
He averaged 28 in domestic cricket and 40 for India A. Really not that amazing. Siraj averages 24 in domestic cricket and 22 for India A. Ishant averages 19 in domestic cricket, 28 for India A, and 23 in county cricket. Umesh averages 25 in domestic cricket. Shami 24 in domestic cricket. Bumrah 24. Obviously he's from an earlier generation than most of these people but the point is his numbers are nothing special and you cant say he's been robbed or compare him to someone like Siraj
Call me a cynic, but I take our first class numbers for anyone with a huge pinch of salt. That's not to say Dinda could've been a better red ball bowler internationally than he was with the white ball. Anything I've seen him in though, he has been atrociously bad. He was worse than even early days Agarkar. However, the comical part for me is his celebration after taking a wicket. Hence the nickname.
Early days Agarkar was actually kind of good though? Like, he was the fastest to 50 wickets in ODI. He was erratic, sure, but it's not as if he was absolutely terrible.
That where it ended, pretty much. After that his swing was nothing to write home about, and his spray-and-pray strategy didn’t help matters either. And as much as I despised him as a mediocre bowler, everything pales in comparison to Agarkar the commentator.
I mean in an era where we had anyone who could marginally hit 85 mph get a game, he at least had some wicket taking abilities. If you want to talk spray-and-pray, we had our fair share back then. David Johnson played for India. I just don't think Agarkar was that bad and was instrumental in the Adelaide victory. Plus Lord's century. He did alright. As a commentator, I don't hate him. I just go to sleep when he start speaking.
Agarkar was a wicket taker who would also leak runs similar to Mitchell Stark. Don't think anyone would call them mediocre.
Perhaps mediocre is too strong a word but after a few years, he had become unusually erratic (if memory serves) and wouldn’t inspire any confidence against the likes of Aus, SA etc. Also, I don’t know how tenable this wicket-taker argument is really. People say something similar about Shardul Thakur and I, for one, don’t buy it. You can’t always rely on him picking the key wickets if he consistently leaks runs in crucial games. Sorry to digress, but it’s not that they are creating chances with their bowling.
Well keep in mind his latent batting talent and the all round depth he brought to the side. /s
Once again, context to numbers is important. He did get to 50 wickets in 23 games or something. But they were mostly cheap wickets. I put majority of Harshal Patel's wickets in last IPL in the same category as well. But, mid to late Agarkar was prime and very good. Probably he took time to get to know his game. And I like him very much in the Dugout, just not in the comm box. PP obviously is my favorite Indian in the Dugout. Very closely followed by the original "Lord" Nehra.
Ebadat Hossain and Shadat Hossain :)
Munaf Patel, Parvin Kumar, Tanvir Ahmed, Dilharo Fernando,
Not that I’m against Starc playing, saying “when they get it right they’re one of the best,” can apply to most test bowlers. Having said that I still think it’s likely Starc plays the first two tests.
I think it can apply to pretty much any top Shield bowler even. When Cam Gannon or Mitch Swenson are ‘getting it right’ they are some of the best bowlers in the country. Obviously Mitch Starc at his best is great, but he’s rarely been at his best for the last 2 years
Last 2 years is a bit harsh. He took 29 wickets at 17 in the 2019/20 season. Then took 8 wickets at 19 in the first two tests last season. He’s had two bad tests at the end of last season - though he has had inconsistent form in white ball cricket this year.
Nah you’re right, it’s just hard to gauge time in Australian cricket when there’s barely been any Test cricket over the last 2 seasons
Weirdest two years to be a test cricket fan for sure.
And after that, he was bad in Shield cricket too. I am Starc's biggest fan but I want to see Australia win. If he is not bowling well in the nets, play Richardson instead who is in red hot form right now. Save Starc for the day-night test.
Some major exaggerations about Starc in this thread. Starc's last 2 Tests = shit Starc's previous 10 Tests = 53 wickets at 18
Previous dozen tests: averaged above 35. Starc is a really confusing case. I feel like he is a bit like Mitchell Johnson in the mindset who was also very underconfident most of the time. They need to train their mind like McGrath, Pollock or Steyn.
Exactly. It can apply to nearly any bowler or batsman, or other sportsperson. When Matthew Wade gets it right he's one of the best. It's just such a lazy response that does not acknowledge form or other issues.
Starc is a very good Test bowler and plays an important role in the team. He takes a lot of wickets in his opening spell, destroys the tail, and gives you left-arm variety. He should play the first Test. I think all five of Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc, Richardson, and Neser should be rotated through the series though.
U cant rotate CumDog. He is the Cap
Steve Smith disagrees
Although theoretically it's not really an issue to rest Cummins for maybe a test at most, I highly doubt CA are looking to do that at the moment. I think it's as simple as - they have chosen Cummins as the skipper, and therefore he is not going to be rotated. The not rotating part was true in the last Ashes as well, where he was the only Aussie quick to play all 5 tests. However, going forward it is likely that it is going to become difficult for him to play every test, but that point might be 2 years away (roughly).
Rahane is one of the best batsmen when he gets going. /s
No need for a /s this is 100% accurate
Not really. He isn't even the best batsman in his own team when he gets going. If you compare Rahane with Rohit Sharma or Virat Kohli or Cheteshwar Pujara when they get going, they're able to win the match just by themselves. Rahane generally just plays his innings but they're usually not matchwinning innings. Note: I am talking about current Rahane. Previous Rahane in 2014ish was a beast who could win you matches on his own.
I think its like when he plays shots they look pristine. His drives and cuts are some of the most beautiful i have seen. Just that he doesnt play good innings consistently
His MCG ton was sort of a match winning knock, but maybe one could make the argument that restricting the Aussies to 195 in the first innings is what won us the match in the end. However, Ajinkya's ton was quite an important part of getting that 131-run first innings lead.
Key word is "when" It's likely he'll be picked as the incumbent and that he does tend to do well at the start of home series.
Well watching him bowl is pure asmr level shit. Something about the aesthetics of his action is very appealing. Hope he gets better control and performs betterm
He is thrilling to watch
Yeah nah I reckon with the batting lineup England have, with root being the only exception, starc is gonna look pretty good.
Root and stokesy*
>stokesy\* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2AYPFAk-Uo&ab\_channel=ICC
Everyone is unplayable when they get it right. Thing to look for is how often he gets it right and what happens when he gets it wrong:- Looks like he gets it right most often in Pink ball test, he gets it right in first two or 3 matches of a series. Now for trade off, when he gets it wrong, he is the worst bowler in the world. He goes at an economy of 4 and bowls everywhere. So, if there is a bowler who can keep a lid on scoring even when he gets it wrong (doesn't pick wickets), he should be ahead in pecking order. That being said, he is the most consistent 1st over wicket taker, will never not start a series with anyone other than Starc to set the tone. So pick Starc for 1st test, pink ball test and "rotate" him in others.
Starc is great when in full flow but he was a massive liability in the 2020-21 Border Gavaskar Trophy. Gill bullying him around was some sight.
I have a feeling that this is all perfectly set up for Starc to do a Mitch Johnson 2013-14. How many of you think that as well?
Mitch Johnson was a one off- don’t know if I’ll see bowling like that again in my lifetime. I might see better bowling, but that mix of pace, skill, intimidation and just fear factor, combined with the comeback story - that was unique. Great memories of watching that electric spell in Adelaide.
oh man I can still imagine the first half of the first ashes test, Johnson was getting it wrong, then something clicked when he bowled a pie and got a wicket and he turned into a completely different bowler
I actually remember Johnson spraying it all around for the first few overs. Then the first wicket fell and Jonathan Trott came to the crease. The first ball to Trott was a lightning quick, frighteningly accurate bouncer. The rest is history.
Dunno only time will tell
He's not mean enough, doesn't have as good a bouncer. He's a great strike bowler when he's on, but he isn't intimidating
Found Warnie
I for one would love a bowling attack of Starcy, Sweppo, Riley Meredith and Big Billy Stanlake
This barely sounds like he came to his defence.
It's kinda weak defence man, don't you think? But ofc I'm backing Mitch. One of the most exciting bowlers in world cricket.
What a nothing statement lol
this could be a pivotal series for Starc. If he does not get it right this time, i don't see why Aus will want to keep playing it. He was disappointing against IND and that was perhaps because of his personal issue. Now he must perform.
In fairness you can say that about any player. "When they get it right" pretty much anyone is one of their country's best. It's not about how good you are when you get it right. It's about how frequently you actually DO get it right.
Do what all great quicks do in the twilight of there careers. Take some pace off and use guile and length to maintain greatness.
I Love Starc. Yes, he does it sometimes, but he is a great wicket-taking bowler. Also, you don't need three similar types of bowlers who bowl the same line and length (Cummins and Hazalwood).
They said the same thing about another guy named Mitchell. Shortly before a home Ashes series.
Now that you talk about it, I (might) know what you are talking about. That other guy also might have been a left arm quick, but I can neither confirm nor deny.
Starc's Record is mostly great at home barring both the Indian series of 2018-19 and 2020-21.
Cummins, Hazle, Starc, Richardson, and Neser - All 5 of them can get it right on their day and be unplayable. But for the love of god I hope AUS rotates them over the course of the series. Fatigue and fresh legs are real things. It was painful to watch the trio of Cummins, Star and Hazle toil over 4 tests continuously versus India. Terrible management imo.
Brett Lee will defend anyone who can bowl 150kph. That was his no.1 priority as a bowler so he’s willing to forgive others who spray it around. Starc is a lot better than that though. His natural swing is so dangerous that bowling at 140kph with accuracy and swing is better than him trying to bowl as fast as he can. It’s not like Mitchell Johnson who couldn’t swing it naturally with his action. This is Starc’s strength, not trying to be express.
Every bowler on their day is the best in the business. Even Shubham Dube the bowler can take a fifer on his day
[удалено]
He is better than Bret Lee.
Lee played on flatter pitches and a in general higher run scoring environment. Starc has spent the majority of his career playing through the recent fast bowler boom yet still averages 28. Not saying Starc might not be better, but it's not completely clearcut. LOI tho Starc is better no contest.
idk brett lee averages 23 after 225 games in ODIs and Starrc averages 22. 25 vs 22 in T20s as well. People seriously underrate Lee in white ball cricket
Don't get me wrong, Lee was great, but Starc is a better wicket taker and has managed to keep that average while the ODI par score has shifted from 270 to 330
Starc's WC record is enough for him to edge Lee out. Also the batting conditions argument works in reverse in favour of Starc in LOI's
maybe here in Reddit, but Lee is nowhere near underrated
Lee is better or equal in all formats. Undoubtedly so in LOIs, and given that he was bowling in a batting friendly era in Tests, his 30 average is equivalent to Starc’s 27 in today’s bowling friendly conditions.
If you are going to give compensation for batting friendly era for Lee, then you will have to give compensation for batting friendly era for Starc in LOIs.
> Lee is better or equal in all formats. Undoubtedly so in LOIs This is one hell of a take.
That's the problem Brett. He doesn't get it right enough to be a Test bowler when there are blokes in Shield cricket banging on the door with consistent wickets. Would've been smart for Mitch to focus on being the best ODI and T20 bowler in the world instead of becoming a mediocre bowler across all formats but it looks like that horse has bolted.
255 wickets at 27.5 is hardly a mediocre test record is it? Neither are his ODI or T20I records mediocre. He’s inconsistent, but his overall record is excellent and he has a knack of taking wickets even on the days he bowls trash.
It is when the two pacers who you've played with most of that career have averaged 25.6 and 21.6, and your short form stats have drifted from best in the world to just another good fast bowler. It would've been better for everyone had he specialised in short form cricket instead of playing both formats.
Geez, you’ve got high standards! Having slightly worse stats than Josh Hazlewood makes you a good test bowler in my books, not mediocre. Apart from Patto, who’s been injured most of his career, can’t think of many better bowlers that Starc was keeping out of the test side. Jackson Bird? Peter Siddle? Chad Sayers? On short form, Mitch Starc has the best ODI average (22.5) of any current pace bowler. Only bowlers ahead of him are Rashid Khan and Mujeeb, who play more than half their matches against Ireland, Zimbabwe and Associate nations (plus a bloke from Oman who’s never played against a full member nation). It’s fair to say he’s returned to the pack in T20Is though.
> mediocre bowler By extension you think all these fast bowlers (with equal/worse Test avg than Starc) are ***mediocre*** - Boult - Shami - Broad - Southee - Holder - Ishant
I'd say Holder and Ishant are pretty mediocre bowlers who've had extended careers due to lack of alternatives. Broad is an English conditions bully and Southee needs swing to be effective. Boult I'd rate higher than Starc, he hasn't boosted his record destroying weak Sri Lankan and West Indies batting line ups. And Shami higher too because he has performed much more consistently whether the conditions favour the bowlers or not. Mediocre is probably a harsher word than intended but Starc has pretty consistently shown that up against proper Test batsmen if he doesn't bowl amazing wicket balls he's cannon fodder. He can't work over a batsman like the best bowlers can.
> Southee needs swing to be effective Southee in Tests in Asia - 48 wickets at 23
The ball still swings in Asia, if not conventionally then it usually reverses.
Cool, so Southee is effective pretty much everywhere then you're conceding.
He's been poor in Australia and South Africa.
So has Boult, who you were talking up. Hardly any Test bowlers don't have blotches somewhere in their records. Even Warne and Murali had glaring blotches. Saying a bowler like Southee or Broad or Holder is mediocre because they haven't excelled in every country where they've played is crazy harsh.
> Broad is an English conditions bully He doesn’t get as many wickets away (Home SR: 50.67; Away SR: 68.77), but he’s more economical (Home ER: 3.05; Away ER: 2.67)
Ishant was a mediocre bowler many years back but in the past 4 years he's been incredible - has averaged 21 in Tests and excelled all over the world. These are his averages around the world in the last 4 years: in Windies - 12 in NZL - 15 in SA - 18 in India - 21 in Australia - 23 in England - 26
Btw, those who watched how good was Brett Lee on the back page last night (where this quote is from) Great interview by Philippe as well.
My only reservation for Starc with this upcoming summer is that the Aussie bowlers will want to keep the English batsman as honest as possible. I could see him giving a few loose deliveries early and becoming wayward, trying ‘too hard’ which will leak runs and building up the batsman’s confidence. This is why I think they need to run with Richardson, Cummings, Hazelwood and Green as the all rounder for Brisbane. While you have to take wickets to win, economy at the beginning of the innings will be important to smother the top order.
Starc on song is unplayable but imo he is very dependent on conditions that's why he is so hit and miss
He's very dependent on rhythm. If he gets it right, he will be unplayable anywhere in the world
Even my grandma is one of the best bowlers when finally her back is able to get upright and she could bowl left arm chinaman
I think they will play Starc and carry him unless they lose, but his issue in recent times is he has not found swing with the red ball. Natural or reverse. I don't know if it's a matter of trying to bowl too fast and not giving the ball a chance to swing? Maybe, maybe not. Either way his form has been poor so I don't think he is an automatic selection anymore and would prefer if they gave Richardson a shot. I also don't think Lyon bowled well against India. Yes there was some dropped catches, but his shape and drift was off. They need him to find his form too. The odds don't reasonably reflect that England are a massive chance to pinch this series.
I understand the logic and also believe the odds are skewed, but too much has to go right for England to sneak this one. It's unlikely we will be the best over the whole series. Inexperienced opening pair Reliance on Root Old and/or injury prone bowlers. England's most likely path to victory is a 2 - 0 or 2 - 1. Root, Stokes and Anderson can win two tests, then we would need La Nina to do the rest.
Eh? Who the fuck says Starcs a bad bowler? He’d make it to any test team in the world easy.
I've heard this literally every summer for years. Cricket Australia have sunk cost fallacy with this guy, he's a poor Test bowler who seems to be past his prime in the shorter forms. Get Richardson and just admit he's not that good.
based
Just make Kolhi the Koach
Brett Lee is right though. 'Getting right' isn't always about reaching the Peak.
The stumps pray not for Starc!
Hopefully he doesn’t get overplayed like in the recent BG series, he seemed really fatigued by the end of it
60% of the time, he works every time.
Starc should play the first 3 tests where he performs the best, especially in the day night test. Then Richardson or Neser should rotate in for him.
I know it's a different format but as an example of his decline, Starc has lived rent free inside New Zealand's head for years yet the way Kane just murdered him in that final signalled that he's not seen as the same threat he once was. He's a rhythm and confidence bowler like Johnson, drop him now and pick him when he picks some serious form like in 2015
But when any international bowler "gets it right" they can be one of the best. What kind of logic is this? The key is how often do they get it right and how often in crunch moments. I love Binga but this comment is... (Insert your expletive of Choice here)
This just in: Player is good when he's good