• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Australia's Test Squad for England and West Indies

adub

International Captain
Faulkner is in no way a Test standard bowler. Not even close.
I think that's harsh, but certainly well down the list.

I don't disagree with JediBrah in that he wouldn't look at all out of place in a squad, but I struggle to see him playing in an XI without a lot of injuries. If he could get a good shield season under his belt say batting 5 and tonning up a couple of times so that batting 6 at test level looked more comfortable he'd help his chances immensely. But even then he'd be behind Marsh (rightly or wrongly), Watson, Maxwell and maybe even Henriques.

I think he'll play more tests, but maybe not many.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Faulkner is in no way a Test standard bowler. Not even close.
Can't really argue with this. It's just plain wrong.

He's comfortably got better First Class stats than Cummins, Pattinson, Hazlewood and pretty much anyone. And if you'd seen him bowl much in Shield cricket (which I doubt you have) you'd see that he'd easily be as good a test bowler as a One Day bowler.

I think that's harsh, but certainly well down the list.

I don't disagree with JediBrah in that he wouldn't look at all out of place in a squad, but I struggle to see him playing in an XI without a lot of injuries. If he could get a good shield season under his belt say batting 5 and tonning up a couple of times so that batting 6 at test level looked more comfortable he'd help his chances immensely. But even then he'd be behind Marsh (rightly or wrongly), Watson, Maxwell and maybe even Henriques.

I think he'll play more tests, but maybe not many.
Michael Bevan syndrome. He's gotten so good at One Day cricket that people assume (however nonsensically) that he can't play the longer form. And because he's always playing One Day cricket he never gets regular Shield/County cricket to show how good he is. He dominated the Shield when he first came in, and was better in First class cricket than Limited Overs.
 
Last edited:

adub

International Captain
Forkers record in Shield Finals is incredible. There's no question he can play red ball cricket. I would personally have him in front of Marsh (the selectors clearly don't), but I'd probably have Maxy and maybe even Henriques in front of both of them as a top 6 bat.

If Agar develops his batting (and he certainly looks like he has the basics to be a good bat) then he might also come into contention as a top 6 batting allrounder. Tough for him to move higher up the order at the moment, but I think he's destined for the middle order with WA at least.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Faulkner is a 4th seamer and a #7 batsman. Neither of which we have room for in the Australian Test team at present.

As someone who has watched him bowl in First Class cricket, he's never going to challenge for a top three seamer spot in the Australian XI, short of about 10 other fast bowlers falling over injured. He is the archetype of a moderately-successful red-ball bowler -- gets a bit of movement but not as much as he should, is generally accurate but not that great, operates around 135km/h where he's not a medium pacer but won't beat anyone for pace. He could be an alright Test bowler, and I think he'll develop into a very serviceable one, but FMD he's nowhere near selection as a bowler when you look at the other talent we've got.

That isn't a knock on Forkers. It's pointing out how many ****ing awesome pace bowlers we've got around these days.

If we assume, for the purposes of bowling selection, that Faulkner batted like Glenn McGrath, then he'd rightfully earn himself a place on the Australia A tour. He's not good enough to lead an attack, he's not good enough to be a strike bowler, and he's far from the best option to play the role of a first-change workhorse. I mean, he's been the 4th seamer for Tasmania all season behind Hilfenhaus, Bird and Fekete; he's making no claims that he's a legitimate frontline bowler these days. He's a bowling all-rounder, and he's certainly the first choice bowling all-rounder we've got. There's just no conceivable room in the XI for a bowling all-rounder with the remaining squad balance we've got.

ODI success aside, he's our version of Chris Woakes. Only England's team balance allows you to play a Woakes/Faulkner type of guy, and Australia's does not.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Yeah you guys really have to look at some of those Bellerive pitches he bowled on to get a proper sense of what his bowling average means. Luke Butterworth who was his sub-130km/hr bowling attack buddy was consistently seen as the bigger threat when they played together on those wickets.

He doesn't run in and bowl slow leg cutters and wide yorkers in four day cricket but he doesn't bowl anything that would threaten Test batsmen either, except on real seamers. He just angles it across right handers all day every day at a decent but not worrying pace.


As Dan said, he's good enough to be a fifth bowler and/or a seventh batsman. That's not a role needed currently so he needs to either do more with the ball or improve his defensive technique to put himself in the Test frame.
 

Antihippy

International Debutant
If he has to bat on those pitches wouldn't that be more of an endorsement for his batting? :P

I dunno, I'll probably still think MMarsh is more accomplished as a test batter for now, but faulkner is like maxwell where I can't actually see anything terribly flawed with his technique other than the ones he creates in order to bat like he does in ODIs, though I feel like I have a less solid grasp of his overall technique than I do with maxwell's

I think the problem for me is that while I can see why people would rate marsh's batting but so far he seems more potential than a proven performer to me.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Faulkner is a 4th seamer and a #7 batsman. Neither of which we have room for in the Australian Test team at present.

As someone who has watched him bowl in First Class cricket, he's never going to challenge for a top three seamer spot in the Australian XI, short of about 10 other fast bowlers falling over injured. He is the archetype of a moderately-successful red-ball bowler -- gets a bit of movement but not as much as he should, is generally accurate but not that great, operates around 135km/h where he's not a medium pacer but won't beat anyone for pace. He could be an alright Test bowler, and I think he'll develop into a very serviceable one, but FMD he's nowhere near selection as a bowler when you look at the other talent we've got.

That isn't a knock on Forkers. It's pointing out how many ****ing awesome pace bowlers we've got around these days.

If we assume, for the purposes of bowling selection, that Faulkner batted like Glenn McGrath, then he'd rightfully earn himself a place on the Australia A tour. He's not good enough to lead an attack, he's not good enough to be a strike bowler, and he's far from the best option to play the role of a first-change workhorse. I mean, he's been the 4th seamer for Tasmania all season behind Hilfenhaus, Bird and Fekete; he's making no claims that he's a legitimate frontline bowler these days. He's a bowling all-rounder, and he's certainly the first choice bowling all-rounder we've got. There's just no conceivable room in the XI for a bowling all-rounder with the remaining squad balance we've got.

ODI success aside, he's our version of Chris Woakes. Only England's team balance allows you to play a Woakes/Faulkner type of guy, and Australia's does not.
Johnson, Starc, Hazlewood, Pattinson, Harris and maybe Siddle. Of those guys half of them are usually injured at any one time anyway.

And how a guy like Cummins gets rated so highly by selectors and the general public is beyond me. One good Test match and a lot of "potential" is a lot more important than being a good bowler who regularly takes wickets and doesn't bowl rubbish, it seems.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Johnson, Starc, Hazlewood, Pattinson, Harris, Siddle, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, Behrendorff, Bird all > Faulkner as a Test match bowler.

The first 5 for being out-and-out better bowlers in every way.
The next 3 for being experienced at Test level and knowing how to get people out.
The final 2 for being far more complete bowlers capable of taking wickets.
I'd also have Chadd Sayers fractionally above Faulkner, but accept that is very contestable.

Cummins is highly rated, and rightfully so, but should be nowhere near Test selection until he strings some decent red ball cricket behind him.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Yep; he's a better batsman than a Sheffield Shield average of about 30 would indicate.
He actually averages 37 in Tasmania, which surprises me a bit, but I can't help but think him batting between 6 and 8 for his whole career reduces the impacts of greentop-era Hobart on his batting stats compared to top order bats. Kind of like the NZ engine room syndrome, by the time you've got 5 or 6 wickets, even on a greentop, the ball's getting a bit older and is doing a bit less, so batting becomes a bit easier.

So many caveats when rating Forkers. I think he's about a 34/27 split, not 32/24.
 

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
I don't reckon Behrendorff is much chop.
Any particular reason why? I've quite liked the look of him, from everything I've seen.

Certainly a limited overs prospect IMO (I can see Starc/Behrendorff/Richardson/Faulkner being a regularODI attack when Test guys are rested), but I reckon he's good enough to be a depth Test quick too.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Johnson, Starc, Hazlewood, Pattinson, Harris, Siddle, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, Behrendorff, Bird all > Faulkner as a Test match bowler.

The first 5 for being out-and-out better bowlers in every way.
The next 3 for being experienced at Test level and knowing how to get people out.
The final 2 for being far more complete bowlers capable of taking wickets.
I'd also have Chadd Sayers fractionally above Faulkner, but accept that is very contestable.

Cummins is highly rated, and rightfully so, but should be nowhere near Test selection until he strings some decent red ball cricket behind him.
Bird, yes. I completely forgot about him. Assuming he starts bowling more like he was pre-injury.
 

Riggins

International Captain
Any particular reason why? I've quite liked the look of him, from everything I've seen.

Certainly a limited overs prospect IMO (I can see Starc/Behrendorff/Richardson/Faulkner being a regularODI attack when Test guys are rested), but I reckon he's good enough to be a depth Test quick too.
Well yeah I meant in terms of red ball stuff. I just think he has the same issues that confront Starc (struggles with ball older than 25 overs, when it's not swinging, leaks runs etc.) without having the same sort of natural gifts that should allow Starc to find a way to be effective when it's not great conditions.


Bird, yes. I completely forgot about him. Assuming he starts bowling more like he was pre-injury.
surprising you forgot Bird after watching so much of Tas in the Shield tbh
 
Last edited:

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
When it comes to WA bowlers, there's always a little part of me that wonders how much their bowling is affected by playing so much at the WACA, given its quite unique conditions and how effective they would be overall in a wide variety of conditions. I don't know if it's an unreasonable question to ask but it might factor in somewhere. Especially for left-armers.

Behrendorff is definitely a class act though IMO.
 

adub

International Captain
I wholehearted agree with the the call as Forkers as a 4th quick No.7 bat. Not good enough to be pressing for a top 3 quick position but handy enough to do a job, not good enough to bat 6 but probably better than a no.8. Just that as noted above we can't really use one of those at the moment. Perhaps in India he might get a game when we're looking to play extra spin options or if you had a top six bat that was also your no.1 spinner, but otherwise he's a square peg in a round hole for our test balance.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
i've come round to faulkers a lot but socials point that he always delivers is non existent in red ball cricket

back of the hand slower balls in the powerplay and an uncanny ability to slog balls over midwicket for 6 in clutch situations have absolutely no correlation to away ashes or subcontinent cricket, the two kinds we still have a long way to go on

imo he's behind mmarsh, watson and henriques as a fast bowling all rounder
When he was playing regular FC cricket, he did a pretty good job of coming up big for Tassie when they were in trouble, bat or ball.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Johnson, Starc, Hazlewood, Pattinson, Harris, Siddle, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, Behrendorff, Bird all > Faulkner as a Test match bowler.

The first 5 for being out-and-out better bowlers in every way.
The next 3 for being experienced at Test level and knowing how to get people out.
The final 2 for being far more complete bowlers capable of taking wickets.
I'd also have Chadd Sayers fractionally above Faulkner, but accept that is very contestable.

Cummins is highly rated, and rightfully so, but should be nowhere near Test selection until he strings some decent red ball cricket behind him.
Hilf ain't in front of Faulkner now. And I don't think Behrendorff would be either; force of personality would push him ahead of some of those guys IMO.
 

Top