Why it makes sense for Australia to go in with an all-pace bowling attack
Why it makes sense for Australia to go all-pace
Watson & Johnson “¦ two players who, potentially, could be the best players in the team © Getty Images[/caption] By Adrian Meredith From the beginning of Test cricket through to the 1960s, Australia have prided themselves on always having quality spinners. Before India got going and started to produce the best spinners the world has ever seen, Australia was the place where spinners were born. West Indies even copied it, but never quite got to the same quality. England had a few decent spinners too, but it really was Australia. Every Australian cricket team, every 11, always had one or two spinners for the variety that it offered. They were never three or four-pronged spin attacks, but they were always one or two. And this was the case for the first 80 or so years of Test cricket. After Richie Benaud retired (who also bowled medium-pace) Australia hasn't had decent spinner in the side. Terry Jenner was okay, but there wasn't a whole lot in between Benaud and the great Shane Warne. Trevor Chappell might have become a quality spinner, if it wasn't for Greg Chappell making Trevor bowl that infamous under-arm ball. Warne played for a good 15 years or so, a fair length of time. So that is 15 years out of the past 40 that Australia have had a decent spinner. The rest of the time, 25 out of the past 40 years, Australia has not had a good spinner. For those 25-40 years, Australia has, nonetheless, played a spinner just for the sake of having a spinner. The team had the likes of Greg Matthews - he averaged over 40 with the bat in Test cricket - Peter Sleep, Tim May, and a whole range of bowlers who simply were not Test quality. They were holding back the team. Australia had spin bowlers averaging 40 while the fast bowlers were averaging 30. The question was: Wouldn’t it have been better instead to play a fast bowler as the fourth bowler? Ah, but occasionally the spinner was useful. What about on spinning pitches, like Sydney and Melbourne (nowadays) and Adelaide in times past? Then you need to have a spinner. What about various pitches in England or around the world that are actually conducive to spin bowling? Where spinners do better than pace bowlers? Where even such awful spinners as Greg Matthews still did well? Then, yes, we should play spinners. But in Perth, or nowadays Brisbane too, we shouldn't consider it. Against India, the best team against spin in the world, playing a spinner is risky. Indeed Pakistan are the only team who have had success with spinners in India. Perhaps Warne was injured or recovering from injury when he toured India, but even he failed to do well in India. So why expect 40-plus spinners, spinner for the sake of a spinner, to do well in India? Against India, on any surface, Australia should play an all pace attack. If Australia wants to use spin against India, a part timer like Simon Katich, Michael Clarke, or - at worst - Steve Smith or a Steve O'Keefe would do. It would be a waste time playing a full-time spinner. This is especially the case in India, where they will be slaughtered. Playing fast bowlers is an art in itself. And as Michael Holding repeatedly states, it isn't just a matter of plonking four fast bowlers down and expecting them to do well. What you need to have is variety. You need good pace mixed with good swing, a mixture of the wayward and aggressive with the line and length bowlers, and even mix up left and right handed if you can. Shane Watson has become a better batsman since he started opening the batting, as opposed to coming down at No at seven or eight. And being used as a shock bowler instead of a stock bowler has improved his bowling astronomically as well. Watson sometimes doesn't bowl at all, sometimes bowls four or five overs, and sometimes bowls the entire innings and takes five or six in an innings. This is how he is best used. Mitchell Johnson, a similar kind of player, should be used likewise. There is nothing wrong with Johnson opening the bowling, just that he should only have four or five overs, unless he is on song. It shouldn't be relied on. If he stinks today, no worries; just take him off and bring him back for those quick spells. And Johnson, like Watson, stinks batting down the order, so he should be batting up at No six or seven at worst - yes, even in Tests. This will improve his all around game, as it did for Watson. Johnson is a better bowler and a worse bat than Watson, but nonetheless they are similar kind of players - players who need to be used properly. And players that potentially could be the best players in the team. Indeed, if used properly, they could be the No 1 and No 2 best players in the entire world. Johnson is left-arm and superfast, but erratic. This works out well in combination with either Brett Lee or Shaun Tait, also superfast and erratic, but right armed. But not both. You can cope with just one erratic bowler though, so since Lee and Tait have both retired from Tests, Johnson can go by himself as the erratic unpredictable Allan Donald-style bowler. Then bring in couple of line and length bowlers, like Doug Bollinger and Ryan Harris, one left and one right. Johnson can then come in and smash them after those two have squeezed the batsmen out. And why not have a quality swing bowler like Clint McKay, one who has plenty of tricks up his sleeve and plenty of ideas. Add in Shane Watson, who can be both tricky and erratic, and you have your perfect five-man Australian pace attack. And, with Johnson batting at six, you can even afford Steve Smith as the spin bowler batting at seven or eight, something which, I have noted, has improved Smith's bowling while not interfering with his batting. Sure, Smith isn't Australia's best spinner. Right now probably Nathan Hauritz, Xavier Doherty and Jason Krezja are fighting it out. On absolute must-play-a-spinner pitches, you could consider one of the three true spinners, depending on their form etc. But Smith is a good batsman who is just about good enough to make the team as a batsman in his own right, and, on his day, is a decent spinner too. Steve O'Keefe is in a similar mould to Smith and has done well internationally too. He should be considered sometimes too, but perhaps more as a backup if Smith gets injured. It isn't that Australia doesn't have good players about. It is more that they aren't being picked and if they are picked they aren't being utilised. Yes, it is fantastic that finally Watson is being used properly but it is high time we start using Johnson properly too. Johnson is a quality player, even if his bowling isn't going perfectly, and he should be able to be given the opportunity to smash a century with the bat if his bowling is going badly, as opposed to batting at nine where at most he can get a 20 or 30. And, importantly, co-ordinate the bowling. One of the biggest problems in Australian cricket is the insistence that we need to replace Warne. We don't. If and when we do find another Shane Warne, great. But until then, let us focus on what we do have, which is a great group of fantastic fast bowlers, who right now are going to waste. (Adrian Meredith, an Australian from Melbourne, has been very passionate about cricket since he was seven years old. Because of physical challenges he could not pursue playing the game he so dearly loved. He loves all kinds of cricket - from Tests, ODIs, T20 - at all levels and in all countries and writes extensively on the game)