Mitchell Starc: The Lone Wolf of the Ashes
It's a familiar story: Mitchell Starc, once again, carrying the Australian team on his shoulders. In the second Ashes Test, he stepped up, just as he did in the first. But here's where it gets controversial: while the team was supposedly built around a 'Big Three' of fast bowlers, Starc was the only one consistently making the starting lineup. With England down to their last wicket, and Starc's impressive figures of 6 for 46, he was on the verge of achieving career-best stats for the fourth time in less than a year! Even though Joe Root and Jofra Archer managed to score some runs, Starc still bore the brunt of the workload, proving his worth once more.
Starc's performance was not just about personal glory; it was also about making history. He surpassed Harbhajan Singh's 417 Test wickets, moving into the top 15 all-time wicket-takers. But the more significant achievement? He overtook Wasim Akram's 414 wickets, becoming the most successful left-arm quick bowler ever. Now, with time on his side, Starc has a strong claim to be the best. While his average might be slightly higher, he's taken each wicket with fewer deliveries, and his recent form shows both numbers trending in the right direction.
However, despite Starc's efforts, England managed to end the day with 325 for nine, a score that could have been even more competitive. Australia's other fast bowlers, unfortunately, didn't make a significant impact. While Scott Boland and Michael Neser showed promise, they only managed to take one wicket each. Boland struggled later in his spell, and Cameron Green and Brendan Doggett conceded runs at a rate of five an over.
The Mystery of Lyon's Absence
While Starc was busy breaking records, let's spare a thought for Nathan Lyon. He started the summer needing just two wickets to pass Glenn McGrath's 563, and he still does! After being barely used in Perth, he was surprisingly left out of this match for no apparent reason. It's hard to understand why professional decision-makers would choose five fast bowlers in almost any situation. It's like going to a cricket match without a protective box – you might not need it, but you'll regret it if you do.
Is More Always Better?
There's a common belief that certain pitches or formats favor fast bowling. But that doesn't mean you need a team full of fast bowlers. Variety can be a great weapon. When facing an England team that loves hitting against spin, you'd think the opposition would welcome that on a ground where each hit needs to travel 80 meters. The first few might work, but the sequence can't last.
If a pitch is good for fast bowlers, you'd think you'd need fewer of them, not more. If the pitch requires patience, that's a spinner's job. In the end, this wasn't a fast-bowling paradise. There was some bounce, and a bit of swing, especially early on. But when England's players applied themselves, runs were there to be scored. With Starc held back for the later sessions, there was no variety in the right-arm seam attack, allowing Joe Root to settle in and score an unbeaten century. This also meant Australia bowled a shocking 74 overs in the day, missing the chance to use a new ball at the end of the evening.
Lyon has played in all three pink-ball matches in Brisbane. He started with 40 overs in a match, then 25, then 50. He's clearly not been found 'surplus to requirements'. Doggett shows promise, but has played one Test and taken five wickets, while Lyon has a vast career of experience. No conditions could justify that gap.
The Verdict
If Lyon had played, England might have been all out for less, or they might have scored even more. Who knows? The point is, the logic behind the decision was flawed, leaving out someone who has consistently performed well in pink-ball cricket. In the end, Australia's success on the day was down to Starc, not the team selections.
What do you think? Was the decision to exclude Lyon justified? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
