Tag Archives: Cummins

Denialism

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, , , , , ,

I’ve become weary of writing about the failings of David Warner and his dead weight on the team, but his comments in the press today can’t be ignored. He is living in denial.

He’s quoted as saying: ‘I’ve played a lot better than what I did last time [in 2019]. I’ve got in good positions, I’m looking to score, I’ve had a couple of unlucky dismissals and then dismissals where I’ve tried to negate the swing or the seam and it’s caught the outside edge of the bat.’

So that’s it. He’s been ‘unlucky’.

‘I’m looking to score,’ he says. Then SCORE! Please!

And playing better? Yes, his average of 25.13 so far this series does indeed surpass the 9.50 he recorded in the 2019 Ashes series, but it’s hardly good enough for Australia’s Test opener in one of the toughest series the team could wish to play. In a team of only eleven, Warner is the sixth highest run scorer. Even Mitchell Marsh has outscored Warner, and he’s played only four innings versus Warner’s eight. Warner’s average for the series is on a par with that of Carey (23.14), Starc (25.00) and Cummins (23.40), and he is supposed to be one of the team’s best players.

Warner isn’t the only Australia batter to underperform – Smith and Green are guilty, too – but Warner’s lack of runs stretches back several years and yet he keeps getting picked. One wonders if and how the selectors will take responsibility for choosing him and keeping Marcus Harris, who averaged 57.13 for Glamorgan this summer, on the bench.

Starc ‘second to none’?

2023 Aus in England incl WTC, , ,

In an article on Cricket Australia’s website today, team management appears anxious to justify selecting Mitchell Starc after a pretty indifferent performance with the ball in the World Test Championship.

Coach Andrew McDonald concedes that Starc tends to leak runs in comparison to the other Australian seamers, but claims this is acceptable because he takes lots of wickets: “His wicket-taking ability is second-to-none. We’ve got to weigh all that up when we make decisions.”

This argument seems a bit dubious to me. Second to none? Yes, he takes some wickets, but is it enough to compensate for the runs he gives away? It doesn’t look like it.

I took a look at Starc’s returns in seamer-friendly conditions since 2019 (i.e. excluding Australia’s three tours to the subcontinent [Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2022, India in 2023] where spinners took most of the wickets). This analysis takes in

  • the 2019 Ashes in England,
  • the 2019-20 home summer against Pakistan then New Zealand,
  • the 2020 home series against India,
  • the 2021-22 home Ashes series and
  • the 2022-23 home summer against West Indies and South Africa.

Across these five series, Starc took an average of 2.05 wickets per innings versus 2.41 for Cummins, 2.15 for Hazlewood and 2.33 for Boland. In doing so, he conceded 3.11 runs per over, more than any other Australian bowler (even Cameron Green).

** Data includes returns for the 2019 Ashes, 2019-20 home summer, 2020 home series vs India, 2021-22 home Ashes and the 2022-23 home summer. ^Neser’s data is taken from his aggregate wicket tally in the 2022-23 Sheffield Shield and his 2023 season in England with Glamorgan.

McDonald’s assertion that Starc’s wicket-taking ability is second to none simply isn’t supported by the data. Perhaps he’s speaking of a different data set. If Starc took more wickets than the other seamers, his poor economy rate would be fine. But he doesn’t.

It seems likely England’s batters will come hard at Australia’s seamers. If Australia wants to win one or both of the first two Ashes Tests, it will need extreme accuracy from its seamers to put the England batters under pressure and force mistakes from them. Cummins, Hazlewood and Boland are likely to provide that pressure. If Starc has one of his off days and can’t control his line and length, he could give away a huge number of runs and potentially put Australia in a losing position. Personally, I would hold Starc back until at least the Third Test and allow Australia’s best seamers to do the job in the first two.

Time to Let Starc Go

2021-22 Ashes, , , , ,

Cricket Australia has awarded Mitchell Starc a CA contract for 2021. This decision appears to reflect an assumption that Starc should remain the spearhead of the bowling attack.

If so, there is little persuasive evidence to support this notion.

Don’t get me wrong, in the first five overs of a pink ball Test or ODI, Starc is the man you want. His ability to swing the new ball back into the right hander is renowned, but once the shine goes off the ball – be it pink, white or red – Starc simply doesn’t threaten batsmen like he used to. A team’s strike bowler needs to perform throughout an entire innings, not just in the first half-dozen overs.

Starc has never had many strings to his bow. If he is on song, he will grab a wicket or two in the first few overs, but if he isn’t, he will drop too short or spray the ball wide, giving batsmen plenty of opportunity to score. This continues to happen far more often than it should. Batsmen both at home and abroad have figured him out, and he hasn’t adjusted. If they can see off his first few overs, they can pick him off and they know it.

With international opportunities curtailed by Covid-19, the recent 2020-21 Sheffield Shield season gave all players an opportunity to strut their stuff in the domestic competition. Starc ended up with only 16 Shield wickets in 7 matches at an ugly average of 47.31. It was hardly inspiring stuff. No fewer than eighteen bowlers took more wickets than Starc in the competition, including the 36-year old Peter Siddle (18 wickets at 28.16 in 6 matches) and 35-year old Trent Copeland (20 wickets at 27.70 in 8 matches). Excluding spinners Nathan Lyon (42 wickets at 25.97 in 9 matches) and Mitch Swepson (32 wickets at 23.40 in only FIVE matches), seamers such as Jackson Bird (35 wickets at 22.17 in 8 matches) and Scott Boland (30 wickets at 24.00 in 8 matches) showed how lacklustre Starc’s returns were.

Bird and Boland are now too old to be considered for selection as Test bowlers, but a number of the younger quicks, especially Brendan Doggett (22 wickets at 26.81 in 6 matches), Sean Abbott (21 wickets at 29.14 in 8 matches) and Queensland’s most exciting prospect, 22-year old Xavier Bartlett (19 wickets at 31.31 in 6 matches) left Starc in the dust. Add to this group the impressive Jhye Richardson, who played two Tests before a shoulder injury forced him to miss most of the past two years (including the entire 2020-21 Shield season).

In the four Tests against India in 2020-21, Starc’s 11 wickets left him well behind Pat Cummins (21 wickets) and Josh Hazlewood (17 wickets). After several years of Cummins coming on as first change, it is now beyond doubt he should open the bowling with Hazlewood.

Starc’s recent white ball performances are no more encouraging. In the year to mid-2019, he played 10 ODIs and took 27 wickets at 18.59. Since January 2020, he has played 11 ODIs and taken 12 wickets at 54.25. The wind has gone out of his sails.

Australia has plenty of quick bowlers. They don’t need to retain Starc as the opening bowler anymore, and the numbers suggest they should not. Cummins and Hazlewood could be better supported by Abbott (whose form with both bat and ball in the 2020-21 season makes him increasingly difficult to omit). But if Abbott, who is 29, is deemed too old, there are plenty of other options. The 24-year old Jhye Richardson is probably the best bet now that his shoulder is (apparently) mended, but the 27-year old Doggett is not a bad option, either. It’s a bit early for Bartlett.

Selectors have often erred by retaining once-great players for too long after their best form is well and truly behind them. Starc has been playing Test cricket for a decade and deserves plenty of credit for his 255 Test wickets at 27.57, but he’s not that calibre of bowler anymore and by pretending he is, the selectors are not fielding their best possible team.

Cummins Needs Runs

2020-21 India in Aus, , ,

The only way Australia wins Test matches at present is if the bowlers do the work. With the batsmen underperforming as a group, it takes Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon to do the heavy lifting, as they did in the first Test against India in Adelaide. Cummins is now the #1-ranked Test bowler in the world, with Hazlewood and Starc coming at #5 and #7, respectively.

But something else is happening which few have said much about: the tail is getting longer because Cummins isn’t making runs. And it’s becoming a pretty serious problem, especially as the top order continues to flounder. Conventional wisdom suggests that when a bowler is taking wickets, the confidence he/she gets feeds through to runs with the bat. That isn’t happening with Cummins. In fact, he is looking more and more uncertain and tentative at the crease.

Until five years ago, the batting contribution of Australia’s bowlers was the envy of other teams, with Ryan Harris averaging 21.53 with the bat and Mitchell Johnson 22.20. Mitchell Starc chimed in with 26.92 in his first 25 Tests.

In his first eighteen Tests, Cummins performed solidly with the willow at No. 8, making 528 runs at 21.12. The highlight came in the second innings of the Third Test against India in Melbourne in December 2018, when he top-scored with 63 out of a team total of 261 (unsuccessfully chasing 399 to win).

HOWEVER, things have changed. In his most recent 14 Tests, Cummins has made a measly 150 runs from eighteen innings at an average of 9.38 and a highest score of 26. From those eighteen starts, he has reached double figures only five times. He averaged 10.14 during the 2019 Ashes series and 9.60 in the 2019-2020 series against Pakistan and New Zealand.

For a No. 8 Test batsman, an average of under 10 is alarming, and it’s a headache for the team. Cummins’ opposite number in the Indian team, Ravi Ashwin, for example, averages 26 at No. 8. Dan Vettori used to average over 39. Shaun Pollock and Kapil Dev both averaged over 30 at No. 8. Even Shane Warne managed over 18.

Meanwhile, at No. 9, Mitchell Starc’s career batting average has dropped a little since the middle of the decade, but still stands at 22.15. In his last ten Test appearances, in fact, Starc has scored 200 runs at 28.57. Even Nathan Lyon has been outscoring Cummins. Over his past dozen Tests, Lyon has scored 141 runs at 14.10. In other words, Lyon is currently generating a batting average roughly fifty percent higher than that of Cummins while batting at No. 10.

So am I suggesting Cummins’ place in the team is under threat? Of course not. Given the way he’s bowling, he could bat at No. 11 and still keep his place. But on current form, he should drop to No. 9 and let Starc take the No. 8 slot.

It would be handy to know what Justin Langer & Co. intend to do to help Cummins regain his form with the bat. While they’re at it, perhaps they could answer two of the most baffling questions of the decade: what exactly do Australia’s batting coaches do, and why isn’t it feeding through to results?

Selectors Colour Blind on Finch

2018-19 India in Aus, , , , , , , , , , , ,

One of the biggest criticisms of Australia’s Test selectors is that they are inconsistent in their selection criteria. They imply that performance in red ball cricket is of paramount importance, yet they have in recent years rolled the dice on untested youngsters (e.g. Ashton Agar) or on players who have done well in white ball cricket. (e.g. George Bailey).

The Test squad selected for the first two Tests of the 2018-19 Indian summer is a reasonably sound one. It faces an uphill battle to defeat India because there is so little batting talent in Australia to choose from, but at least it’s consistent in that most of the batsmen can justify their selection on the strength of their red ball cricket, if for no other reason that there is nobody better to take their place.

Khawaja? Yes, fine. Travis Head? Well….I suppose so. Just. He’s been unconvincing but has done just well enough to get another chance given his youth. Marcus Harris is not a ‘bolter’ as the media has said. He has averaged north of 40 for both of the past two completed Shield seasons and is averaging 86.40 so far this season. He deserves his shot, and 26 is a good age to have learned his craft and to hit the accelerator. I hope Matt Renshaw gets his act together because he has youth on his side and just seems to ooze potential from every pore, but Harris edged him out, fair and square. Peter Handscomb might not make the starting eleven on 6 December but he, too, has a good combination of track record and recent performance. Even the hellishly inconsistent Shaun Marsh deserves his position based on recent performances. His brother, Mitchell, more assuredly does not deserve his, but the selectors have made it clear Mitchell Marsh will be picked if he can more or less stand upright. Yes, he made 151 against Queensland at Allan Border Field recently but who hasn’t made a score like that on that wicket? It’s a road. Put me in on that wicket. I’ll make 150, too.

But I digress.

The glaring exception is Aaron Finch. Why on earth is he described by all and sundry as a ‘lock’ for the First Test? Finch is a nice bloke and an experienced hand, but there is no evidence (and I mean none) to suggest he is among Australia’s top six red ball batsmen. After 79 first-class matches, he averages 36.58 and has made a mere 7 centuries from 131 innings. In the 2017-18 Shield season, he played 8 matches but averaged only 35.28 with only a single century. His selection is being described by the coaches as justfied based on innings of 62, 49, 39 and 31 in the 2-Test series against Pakistan in the UAE. Not long ago, Glenn Maxwell was denied a Test spot because it was said he needed to make hundreds. Now, personally I think Maxwell is overrated and does not necessarily deserve to be in the Test team, but if that is the rule for selection, why on earth is Finch a ‘lock’? It makes no sense. He currently appears to be out of form, but Finch is primarily a white ball specialist who swings hard for the fences without moving his feet. C’mon, he is not a Test batsman. I hope very much to be proven wrong, but if he opens for Australia on 6 December, I suspect he will fail against what is the best Indian pace attack to visit these shores for a long time.

If one is honest and logical, there is no place for Finch.

If the selectors really mean what they say and wish to strike the proper balance between performance and potential in red ball cricket, and if they absolutely insist on retaining M Marsh, the top six should be:

M Harris
M Renshaw
U Khawaja
S Marsh
T Head or P Handscomb
M Marsh
T Paine
P Cummins
M Starc
N Lyon
J Hazlewood

Personally, I would jettison M Marsh and play both Head and Handscomb with four bowlers (after all, Head can bowl some part-time offies), but as I said, the selectors appear illogically committed to M Marsh.

Paine’s position deserves plenty of debate, but we’ll save that for another post.

Not Rocket Science

2017 Aus in Bangladesh, , , , ,

The post-mortem from the 1st Test against Bangladesh in Mirpur doesn’t need to be long. In fact, it would be a mistake to over-analyse it.

1) Bangladesh are not the easy-beats they used to be. They’ve beaten England and Sri Lanka in the past year. Any cricket ‘writer’ who was surprised by Bangladesh’s victory probably covers the rugby league in the off season.

2) Australia did not prepare. Australia started well in India in February then fell in a steaming heap thereafter. A few of them went off to the IPL, and a few participated in a very half-hearted Champions Trophy campaign. None played red ball cricket for five months. And don’t anyone try and claim that a brief training camp in Darwin represented serious preparation. It was better than nothing, but not by much.

3) Australia is only a mediocre team. Its only world-class Test cricketers are Smith, Starc (currently absent), Hazlewood and Lyon. Warner could arguably now join that list, but if it wasn’t for his 2nd-innings ton in Mirpur, I would not have included him. Warner is mostly a flat track bully who has always struggled against spin, so he actually deserves a lot of kudos for being the only batsman to dig deep and produce a good innings in Mirpur. I honestly didn’t think he was capable of that knock. I would go as far as to speculate that it might prolong his career, coming at a time when his confidence must have been starting to flag after a string of low scores.

4) Bangladesh didn’t play all that well, but Australia played really really badly. I don’t want to be mean to Bangladesh, but they didn’t really play above-average cricket. It’s just that Australia played awfully, specifically with the bat. The spinners on both teams bowled adequately, with the spectacularly uneven bounce helping them a lot. Tamim Iqbal, Shakib Al-Hasan, Renshaw and Warner proved that runs could be scored if only one was prepared to work for them, but the Australian batsmen again lacked the skill and discipline. As Smith admitted after the match, they forgot whatever they had learned in India. Why? See Points 2) and 3) above.

The changes required for the 2nd Test in Chittagong are pretty obvious (which doesn’t mean the selectors will make them).

Matthew Wade must go. I don’t blame him one bit for letting through a lot of byes on that nightmare Mirpur pitch but his batting is nothing short of abysmal. He is now a dead weight, and nowhere near the player he once was. Peter Handscomb is by no means a long-term Test ‘keeper, but Australia needs batsmen, and it needs them NOW. Wade must be dropped and Handscomb given the gloves in Chittagong, thereby allowing Hilton Cartwright an audition. Before the Ashes begin in November, the selectors can observe the leading contenders for ‘keeper-batsman in the first three rounds of the Sheffield Shield. Maybe they’ll go back to Peter Nevill, maybe they’ll try someone else, but to pretend Wade is Test standard is to indulge dangerous self-delusion.

Other than that, the only other change to make appears to have been made; i.e. bring in a third spinner and have Cummins as the sole quick.

Glenn Maxwell must also go but that can wait until after this series.

Some Spine in the Middle Order

2017 Aus in India, , , , , , , ,

Mitchell Marsh has gone home injured from India, hounded by cruel but accurate headlines labelling him Australia’s worst ever No. 6. It’s not his fault – it’s the selectors who persist in filling the No. 6 slot with a so-called ‘all-rounder’ who bats a bit and bowls a bit but does neither well enough to help win a Test match for his team.

And now they’ve done it again.

Marcus Stoinis?

Really?

Why would you pick this guy for the Test team on the back of one (admittedly phenomenal) ODI innings against New Zealand? Like Hilton Cartwright and Moises Henriques before him, Stoinis bowls lollipop medium-pacers which India’s batsmen will chew up and spit out on their low, slow wickets. And he’s not a good enough batsman to play at No. 6 in the Test team. He simply isn’t (and neither was Mitchell Marsh). So why fly him to India? It makes no sense.

And if they don’t play Stoinis in the 3rd Test, will they play Usman Khawaja? A sensible short-term solution, perhaps, but Uzzy is not a No. 6 batsman. He’s an opener.

Oh, and by the way, Glenn Maxwell certainly isn’t the answer, either.  Substitute ‘off-spinners that don’t spin’ for ‘lollipop medium pacers’ in the paragraph above, and all the same arguments apply. Maxwell should not even be in the Test squad. He hasn’t earned it. He’s not good enough.

The Australian selectors seem to have forgotten how much better the team fared when it had a proper batsman at No. 6. Come back, Mike Hussey, we miss you. The obvious solution is to find a proper middle-order batsman.  Australia has done well in India with two decent seamers and two decent spinners. It doesn’t need a third seamer, or a third spinner. Even with Starc flying home, you could play Jackson Bird or if you must have more pace, fly Pat Cummins out to India. I don’t think it makes any difference.  Honestly, I think Bird will do fine. He lacks Starc’s threatening pace but he’s a lot more accurate.

When desperate after the series loss to South Africa, the selectors resorted to picking a couple of young batsmen who had (shock, horror,gasp) a good if somewhat short track record in the Sheffield Shield. Remember the Sheffield Shield? So far, Matt Renshaw and Peter Handscomb have done pretty well.  Both look likely to improve.

Why not stick with that approach? Australia needs a decent No. 6 batsman. There are two obvious candidates.

One is Kurtis Patterson, who bats at No. 4 for NSW. He will be 24 in May. He has played 39 first-class matches and has an average of 42.83 with 5 centuries. So far this season, he’s scored 621 runs at 47.77, with one ton and six half-centuries.

The other is Jake Lehmann, who bats at No. 5 for South Australia. The 24-year old Lehmann has played 25 first-class matches and has an average of 46.41 with 5 centuries.  So far this season, he’s made 646 runs at 49.69.

I reckon either Patterson or Jake Lehmann would be worthwhile selections. They both resemble Renshaw and Handscomb: young, and with a decent track record. The selectors are on to a good strategy. They should stick with it and abandon this catastrophic policy of picking a mediocre player to bat at No. 6.

Lay Off the Selectors

2015 Ashes, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Let’s be honest, we cricket fans have all had a whinge about the selectors from time to time. In the aftermath of the Ashes loss in England, the knives are out for a lot of people, including Rod Marsh and his team.

I think that’s unjustified. The selectors did a pretty good job on this Ashes tour, and do not deserve much of the criticism they’ve received.

“I’m just racking my brain to try and think of who else we could have picked,” Marsh has said.

He’s right.

There really wasn’t anybody else who genuinely justified selection. There were good reasons to pick each member of the Ashes squad with the exception of Shane Watson and Shaun Marsh. These two players have a long track record of underperformance and inconsistency at Test level. Neither player has the skill or mental aptitude for Test cricket, and both have spent years demonstrating that.

But the truth is it would not have mattered much.

Neither Watson nor Shaun Marsh was responsible for the loss of the Ashes. I’m sure you could point fingers at more than these three, but Steve Smith, Michael Clarke and Adam Voges were primarily responsible for the series loss due to their inability to score runs at Edgbaston and Trent Bridge. Yes, Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood certainly could have bowled a better line and length, but they were always defending low totals. The main problem was the middle order batting.

Generally, selectors pick players who have been making runs and taking wickets. They did that.

The veterans in the squad such as Clarke and Brad Haddin had good track records, and although their runs had been drying up, Clarke made 128 against India as recently as December. Chris Rogers, David Warner and Smith all played well prior to the Ashes. Voges averaged over 100 last season in the Sheffield Shield and has a long and impressive first class career – why wouldn’t you pick him? After the World Cup, you couldn’t go past Mitchell Starc, and you’d pick Mitchell Johnson on the strength of the 2013-14 Ashes series even if the guy hadn’t rolled his arm over since. Josh Hazlewood was very impressive in his early career, and Nathan Lyon only gets better and better.

True, the Mitchell Marsh experiment didn’t work out, but he was worth a shot. Given Watson’s extended run of poor form, it was a well worth giving Mitchell Marsh a chance after Cardiff. He is definitely not a Test No. 6 batsman, but at 23 he has time on his side, and should be sent back to the Sheffield Shield to make some runs. Marsh is not the first young player to be thrown into the cauldron a little bit too early (Steve Smith was woeful when first he played Test cricket), and he has enormous potential.

Moreover, I give the selectors great kudos for swapping Haddin for Peter Nevill after Cardiff, and am pretty sick and tired of ex-players stirring the pot and whingeing that the ‘family first’ policy should have ensured a game for Haddin at Lord’s. Nevill was a better bet than Haddin, and the selectors made a tough call. They deserve more credit for it.

Oh, and the idea that Peter Siddle should have played at Trent Bridge? C’mon…. It wouldn’t have made any difference. The sad, brutal truth is that Sidds is now only a back-up bowler who would probably not have been in the squad at all if James Pattinson and Pat Cummins were fit and had enough recent red ball cricket under their belts. It’s a cruel statement, but fair. Siddle is down on pace and not the force he once was. The selectors know this. They were right to omit him.

Darren Lehmann has said that swapping out Mitchell Marsh for his brother Shaun in the Fourth Test was a selection error, but again, this selection made little difference to the series result. As mentioned above, Shaun Marsh has been nothing but a disappointment at Test level and should never have been in the squad, but ultimately the series was slipping away by the time he was called up and it would not have mattered which Marsh was selected.

So in my view, Watson and Shaun Marsh are the two black marks against the selectors, but they earn one back for the replacement of Haddin with Nevill. Moreover, they shouldn’t be pilloried for picking either Mitchell Marsh or Voges.

And should any of the up-and-comers have been picked? Joe Burns, Cameron Bancroft and Usman Khawaja are having a good tour of India with Australia A this month, and all three stand a chance of achieving (or regaining) a Test place in coming months. But were they battering down the selectors’ door before the Ashes tour? Not really.

Pat Howard, the performance manager of the Australian team, has gone on record blaming himself for (among other things) trying to prepare Ryan Harris for the series, picking a ‘Dad’s Army’ team and having the selectors announce one touring party for both the West Indies and England.

It’s very noble of Howard to accept blame for the loss of the Ashes, but I struggle to see how any of his alleged transgressions were responsible.

As I’ve noted before (see my earlier post ‘Mythbusting’), Harris was always unlikely to be ready to play. Even if he did play, he was 18 months older than in the previous Ashes series and there was no guarantee he would have been anywhere as effective. Suggestions that Australia ‘missed’ Harris are misguided. Australia might have missed the bowler Harris used to be, but he probably would not have been that bowler in the current series anyway.

As for Howard’s reference to ‘Dad’s Army’, I’m not sure what he’s referring to (but mind you, I don’t what his job entails anyway). It was the selectors’ job to pick the side, not Howard’s, and as I’ve opined above, they did a decent job. I’m not sure exactly what Howard is accepting blame for.

Finally, Australia flew straight from the West Indies to England. At no point between the two series was there sufficient time for other Australians to play enough first-class cricket to impress the selectors. So even if the selectors had decided to pick an entirely new squad for the Ashes at the end of the West Indies series, who would they have chosen other than the players they already had?

Howard has said he welcomes any review of his position. Great – perhaps we’ll find out what he actually does and why it matters.

In the meantime, I think the critics should lay off the selectors. They’re doing okay.

Why Cummins, Not Pattinson?

2015 Ashes, , , , , , , , ,

One minute Australia has plenty of fast bowling options, the next it doesn’t.

I haven’t seen many pundits express surprise at the addition of Pat Cummins to the Ashes squad after Ryan Harris’ retirement, but I for one am pretty gobsmacked. It’s not that I have anything against Cummins (I do not) but it’s just…….how do you know how he’ll perform if he gets a game?

I mean, this is a guy who has played one famous Test and no more than six first-class matches in his entire career. After his man-of-the-match Test debut in South Africa three and half years ago, he has spent most of his time injured. He has scraped together 12 ODI appearances (19 wickets at 30.36) and 14 T20s (19 wickets at 19.47), none of which sheds any light on his likely ability in Test cricket.

The guy may be the best thing since sliced bread, but how does one make that determination? I hope the selectors know something we don’t.

I do wonder why the selectors didn’t opt for James Pattinson, who has also spent most of his time injured but has actually played 13 Tests and has 51 wickets at 27.07. Pattinson is currently fit once more, and will front up for Australia A in its tour of India, which commences on Wednesday, 15 July. He missed the 2014-15 Shield season through injury so perhaps the selectors want to see him play some red ball cricket, but all of that (i.e. the recent lack of cricket) is even more true for Cummins than for Pattinson.

Jackson Bird appears to have dropped off the radar after his promising Test debut against Sri Lanka in 2012 was also followed by a prolonged injury layoff. He took 18 wickets at 33.27 in 7 matches during the 2014-15 Sheffield Shield competition, and is currently playing for Hampshire where he has taken 14 wickets in four first class games this season. Not completely shabby, but not enough to demand Test selection, one would think.

The selectors could also have considered Tasmania’s Andrew Fekete (57 wickets at 26.94 in 16 first-class games) but Fekete recently turned 30 so perhaps his age put them off. His 37 wickets in the 2014-15 Shield competition was, however, enough to earn him a berth on the same Australia A tour of India that Pattinson is about to embark on. Also on the Australia A tour of India is Sean Abbott, who is still only 23. He has 55 first-class wickets at 31.16 and must be in the frame, although not at the top of the list.

Nathan Coulter-Nile has never really managed to knock the selectors’ socks off (I think he bowls far too short too often). Other leading Sheffield Shield wicket-takers Nathan Rimmington, Doug Bollinger and Mick Hogan are all too old (32, almost 34 and 34 respectively). Ben Hilfenhaus is 32 and not the man he was. Besides, he has just injured his hip after taking 7 wickets in three county games for Nottinghamshire, and is returning to Australia.

Personally I would love to see James Faulkner in the Test team. I think he is precisely the feisty character the team needs AND he is in England currently playing for Lancashire. Moreover, he’s in form, having taken 18 wickets in his past four county games. Only a week ago he took 5-39 and made 68 against Essex. But assuming the selectors drop Watson for Mitchell Marsh, it will presumably be difficult to find room for a second all-rounder.

There are other names one could ponder but none of them are in danger of imminent selection.

So if Mitchell Starc doesn’t play in the Second Test, or if he or Mitchell Johnson breaks down during the Ashes, it will be Peter Siddle or Cummins.

Siddle may do well, but it’s hard to say. I haven’t got a clue. He lacks the pace of Johnson and Starc but is more accurate. He took 17 wickets during the last Ashes series in England two years ago, but eight of those came in the First Test at Trent Bridge. The Aussie coaches say he has regained some of the pace he lost; if that is really true, Siddle may be just the ticket.

If not, then it’s Cummins.

And then what happens?