I think that's harsh, but certainly well down the list.Faulkner is in no way a Test standard bowler. Not even close.
Can't really argue with this. It's just plain wrong.Faulkner is in no way a Test standard bowler. Not even close.
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.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.
Johnson, Starc, Hazlewood, Pattinson, Harris and maybe Siddle. Of those guys half of them are usually injured at any one time anyway.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.
Yep; he's a better batsman than a Sheffield Shield average of about 30 would indicate.If he has to bat on those pitches wouldn't that be more of an endorsement for his batting? :P
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.Yep; he's a better batsman than a Sheffield Shield average of about 30 would indicate.
Any particular reason why? I've quite liked the look of him, from everything I've seen.I don't reckon Behrendorff is much chop.
Bird, yes. I completely forgot about him. Assuming he starts bowling more like he was pre-injury.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.
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.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.
surprising you forgot Bird after watching so much of Tas in the Shield tbhBird, yes. I completely forgot about him. Assuming he starts bowling more like he was pre-injury.
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.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
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.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.