Champions Trophy 2013 May 1, 2013

Starc on road to full fitness, hopes to gain pace

34

Mitchell Starc has declared the ankle operation that he underwent five weeks ago such a good move that it might help him gain pace when he returns to bowling this year. Starc has been named in Australia's squads for the Ashes and the Champions Trophy one-day tournament, which begins in early June, and he is expected to be fit by then, after having surgery on his left ankle following his early departure from the Test tour of India in March.

Starc played through pain in the third Test in Mohali before being sent home for the operation and he said he was already free of the discomfort that had troubled him before. Starc, 23, plays all three formats for Australia and given his ability to swing the ball, he is likely to be a key man in the Ashes campaign, hence Cricket Australia's eagerness to ensure he would not be carrying a niggle that could hamper his productivity.

"The spur on the inside didn't bother me much; that's why we were talking about getting through hopefully 12 months [without surgery]," Starc told reporters in Brisbane on Wednesday. "But we'd found one on the outside that had broken off, that was the one that bothered me most in India, and I didn't know about that one until I got back to Australia. That Test in Mohali it was pretty painful... so with the timeline that we needed to be right for the Ashes, we needed to come home and get it done.

"I've been back in the gym, doing my fitness stuff for three weeks now, so I'm feeling good. I've got more movement in my ankle now than I did after the first surgery three or four years ago. It could work in my favour, maybe an extra yard or two of pace if I'm lucky. But the pain's gone now so that's the main thing, [I've had] a few months of bowling through pain and a few injections but I'm past that and ready to hit the ground running."

Starc is not the only fast bowler in Australia's Champions Trophy squad who is currently on the mend: Clint McKay, Australia's reigning One-Day International Cricketer of the Year, finished the summer battling a stress reaction in his right foot. He, too, is expected to be fully fit by the time the one-day tournament begins, but the new ODI vice-captain George Bailey said regardless, the Australians had developed enough depth over the summer to ease any concerns.

"I think they've both played enough cricket now to know what they can and can't do," Bailey said of Starc and McKay. "One of the pleasing things for me coming to the back end of the summer was that it felt like we were starting to have a stronger squad, or a stronger team balance. One of the keys for this sort of tournament is making sure that you're not necessarily relying on one or two, but that on any given day, any one of your squad can step in and do a really important role for you."

This will be the first time Bailey has been part of Australia's team for a major ODI tournament and he is part of the changing face of Australia's one-day side. Australia have won the past two Champions Trophy events, in 2006 and 2009, but only four members of the 2009 squad - Clarke, Shane Watson, Mitchell Johnson and Adam Voges - are back to defend the title. Australia have slipped to third on the ODI rankings and while Bailey knows the team is not the all-conquering outfit of past years, he is confident they can come away from England with the trophy.

"It is a big tournament," Bailey said. "We've won it twice. It's a big goal for us and a point to prove, that we're back on track with our one-day cricket and see if we can win it for the third time. I think we've had enough wake-up calls over the last 12 to 15 months to know that we're not a powerhouse in one-day cricket any more.

"I still think we can be the best side in the world at one-day cricket but certainly not by the margin it was two, three or four years ago. I don't think there's any pressure about being defending champions. The longer-term goal for us is to make sure we play more consistent cricket."

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Jaffa79 on May 7, 2013, 17:40 GMT

    cont...Eng have home advantage. You haven't beaten us at home for 12 years and we have won the last two Ashes series. Our attack is ranked higher (granted that your guys haven't played enough) and our batters have a huge advantage in terms of their averages and experience. We have a much better keeper and better spinners. You are reliant on your capatin who has a dodgy back and an injury prone bowling attack that have not really played in Eng in international cricket apart from last summer and we all know how that went. Look...you guys may win but are Eng wrong to be confident? It is not a quality that you guys ever lack! I went to Aus in 2002-3 and the sneering derision of our players (and country) at the hands of the Aus press and public linger long in the memory. Maybe the Eng press are getting cocky but why shouldn't we looking at the facts and recent history. If Eng lose, I'll be the first to applaud Aus but if you lose, I suspect it'll be the same old excuses.

  • Jaffa79 on May 7, 2013, 17:29 GMT

    @ Daniel Sijmons, you clearly haven't read my posts properly or the ones that preceeded them. I was using the rankings to highlight that using stats blindly without looking at underlying reasons is foolish. Please read through the posts before writing on here! As to the NZ series, I have read many Eng fans on here, me included, say that we were severly lucky to escape that series 0-0. I just feel that you guys have an inability to have any sort of perspective on things. Whether it be whinging about the Indians wickets (wow...they spun? In India?), cherry picking stats about recent Eng-Aus matches (inc ODI series at the back of Ashes defeats but not acknowledging that Eng stuffed you 4-0 last summer). For me, ODI series last summer or in 09 or 12 won'tt matter too much. Or using rankings to state Siddle is better than Jimmy but not highlighting that our attack is ranked better. I was responding to poorly used stats. Read again! Eng are confident but why shouldn't we be? cont...

  • on May 7, 2013, 8:30 GMT

    @Milhouse do you have a point or are you just here to annoy people? You relied this article has nothing to do with England right? And you use ranking to prove your attack is better? All it proves is that Pattinson, Starc and Bird all are yet to climb the rankings do to playing a small number of tests (hilfys injury is the only reason he's below your attack in the rankings....

    We lost India, poor selections cost us dearly... and we lost to SA, but if you think that's all there was to the SA series you obviously didn't watch it... We were horribly unlucky to loose Pattinson and the test in Adelaide, as we were with rain in Brisbane... We lost, but that doesn't diminish

    And as for England... Where was you're great attack that never came close to taking 20 wicket against NZ? The English media are so bullish after our horror India tour (after we lost 2 of out all time great batsman) but forget about Englands poor performance in NZ... or was it the pitches fault?

  • Jaffa79 on May 6, 2013, 16:27 GMT

    You use the ODI series at the end of a long hard Ashes series in 2011/12 to boost your stats. Fair enough - you were the better team. I think it was a case of after the Lord Mayors show, as it was in 2009. On both occassions, you guys played some good cricket and were obviously motivated by being beaten in both Ashes series (more important you'd agree?). If you want to want to base this on Test cricket, which you should, as that is the main format this summer, then we have a clear advantage. If you want to use ODIs to make a point, then surely the 4-0 thrashing last summer isn't something you want to remember is it? You can use stats all you like but sensible cricket fans look beyond stats to see the real picture. Either way, England have the advantage. I know whose shoes I'd rather be in...

  • Blokey on May 6, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    You seem to have been reading many of my tweets, @Milhouse79.Well done! England's era of "superiority" is indeed impressive, with England having won 9 of the last 18 internationals vs Australia and losing 8 in the period including the last Ashes. Of course the entirety of the modern era going back 30 years - where Australia's dominance has surfaced 75% of the time - is but a temporary blip, old chap, as I'm sure you'd agree. I am particularly heartened by the stunning performance of the English Lions on their recent tour of Australia. Several of our brightest young bats reached double figures on more than one occasion, and at least three bowlers took a wicket. This clearly shows the superiority of English cricket - even as Rogers, Copeland and co struggle against the might of English County opponents even as we speak. I rest my case (of port).

  • Jaffa79 on May 5, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    HatsforBats...I do not think England are the best team ever or anything like that. It makes me chuckle when you Aussies accuse us of being cocky/arrogant! Pot and kettle perhaps? I don't think the Aussie pysche can cope with England being superior, which we have been over the last few years. As I said, at Edgebaston you batted the last day out to get out of jail. Eng bowled you out for 263, we got 376. You were 161-4 before Clarke and North got you out of trouble. If you think Australia controlled any of that game, I'd question whether you saw it. You lost that series due to massive batting collapses. It is tragic that you cannot accept defeat. Do you think you beat SA last summer? I bet you dismiss the 4-0 ODI drubbing last year as well! Are you one of those whinging Aussies that blamed the 4-0 India thrashing on the pitches? Look mate...just accept it that you lost. Thing that has to worry you a lot is that your batting is so much worse nowadays. Going to be a long tough summer!

  • HatsforBats on May 5, 2013, 0:46 GMT

    Milhouse79, you seem to be one of those English fans who've swallowed their own medias tripe and think the current team is one of the greatest of all time! Australia scored more runs and took more wickets, both at better averages and controlled much of the series. Edgbaston? 2 days lost to rain and the match finished with England taking 5/375 to give Aus a 200+ lead. The blinkers are off mate, Australia didn't deserve to win that series cause they couldn't control key passages of play. England won those key sessions and that decided the series

  • Jaffa79 on May 4, 2013, 16:49 GMT

    HatsforBats...you are clearly demonstrating what we all know and that is that Australians are the worst winners and worst losers in the world. You are probably one of those delusional Aussies who thinks that you didn't lose to SA last Aussie summer. Mate...England just won the odd session? England dominated at Lords, thrashed you at the Oval and Clarke had to bat out the last day at Edgebaston! It was a tight series I agree (much tighter than the thrashing down under) but England were no doubt the better team! All without KP who missed 3 tests and an unfit Flintoff! You need to take off the blinkers off.

  • HatsforBats on May 4, 2013, 7:05 GMT

    @ Milhouse79, "when has a lower order swish ever counted for anything?", apparently when it's Broad or Swann or Bresnan, or even Panesar getting off strike. English fans & commentators bleat ad nauseum about how good their lower order batting is.

  • HatsforBats on May 4, 2013, 6:57 GMT

    @ Milhouse79, revisionist history? Maybe you should go back and watch that series again? Maybe because England won the series you think they were the better team? England won a few very important sessions but Australia controlled the majority of that series. I think the performances in that series back up that view.

  • Jaffa79 on May 7, 2013, 17:40 GMT

    cont...Eng have home advantage. You haven't beaten us at home for 12 years and we have won the last two Ashes series. Our attack is ranked higher (granted that your guys haven't played enough) and our batters have a huge advantage in terms of their averages and experience. We have a much better keeper and better spinners. You are reliant on your capatin who has a dodgy back and an injury prone bowling attack that have not really played in Eng in international cricket apart from last summer and we all know how that went. Look...you guys may win but are Eng wrong to be confident? It is not a quality that you guys ever lack! I went to Aus in 2002-3 and the sneering derision of our players (and country) at the hands of the Aus press and public linger long in the memory. Maybe the Eng press are getting cocky but why shouldn't we looking at the facts and recent history. If Eng lose, I'll be the first to applaud Aus but if you lose, I suspect it'll be the same old excuses.

  • Jaffa79 on May 7, 2013, 17:29 GMT

    @ Daniel Sijmons, you clearly haven't read my posts properly or the ones that preceeded them. I was using the rankings to highlight that using stats blindly without looking at underlying reasons is foolish. Please read through the posts before writing on here! As to the NZ series, I have read many Eng fans on here, me included, say that we were severly lucky to escape that series 0-0. I just feel that you guys have an inability to have any sort of perspective on things. Whether it be whinging about the Indians wickets (wow...they spun? In India?), cherry picking stats about recent Eng-Aus matches (inc ODI series at the back of Ashes defeats but not acknowledging that Eng stuffed you 4-0 last summer). For me, ODI series last summer or in 09 or 12 won'tt matter too much. Or using rankings to state Siddle is better than Jimmy but not highlighting that our attack is ranked better. I was responding to poorly used stats. Read again! Eng are confident but why shouldn't we be? cont...

  • on May 7, 2013, 8:30 GMT

    @Milhouse do you have a point or are you just here to annoy people? You relied this article has nothing to do with England right? And you use ranking to prove your attack is better? All it proves is that Pattinson, Starc and Bird all are yet to climb the rankings do to playing a small number of tests (hilfys injury is the only reason he's below your attack in the rankings....

    We lost India, poor selections cost us dearly... and we lost to SA, but if you think that's all there was to the SA series you obviously didn't watch it... We were horribly unlucky to loose Pattinson and the test in Adelaide, as we were with rain in Brisbane... We lost, but that doesn't diminish

    And as for England... Where was you're great attack that never came close to taking 20 wicket against NZ? The English media are so bullish after our horror India tour (after we lost 2 of out all time great batsman) but forget about Englands poor performance in NZ... or was it the pitches fault?

  • Jaffa79 on May 6, 2013, 16:27 GMT

    You use the ODI series at the end of a long hard Ashes series in 2011/12 to boost your stats. Fair enough - you were the better team. I think it was a case of after the Lord Mayors show, as it was in 2009. On both occassions, you guys played some good cricket and were obviously motivated by being beaten in both Ashes series (more important you'd agree?). If you want to want to base this on Test cricket, which you should, as that is the main format this summer, then we have a clear advantage. If you want to use ODIs to make a point, then surely the 4-0 thrashing last summer isn't something you want to remember is it? You can use stats all you like but sensible cricket fans look beyond stats to see the real picture. Either way, England have the advantage. I know whose shoes I'd rather be in...

  • Blokey on May 6, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    You seem to have been reading many of my tweets, @Milhouse79.Well done! England's era of "superiority" is indeed impressive, with England having won 9 of the last 18 internationals vs Australia and losing 8 in the period including the last Ashes. Of course the entirety of the modern era going back 30 years - where Australia's dominance has surfaced 75% of the time - is but a temporary blip, old chap, as I'm sure you'd agree. I am particularly heartened by the stunning performance of the English Lions on their recent tour of Australia. Several of our brightest young bats reached double figures on more than one occasion, and at least three bowlers took a wicket. This clearly shows the superiority of English cricket - even as Rogers, Copeland and co struggle against the might of English County opponents even as we speak. I rest my case (of port).

  • Jaffa79 on May 5, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    HatsforBats...I do not think England are the best team ever or anything like that. It makes me chuckle when you Aussies accuse us of being cocky/arrogant! Pot and kettle perhaps? I don't think the Aussie pysche can cope with England being superior, which we have been over the last few years. As I said, at Edgebaston you batted the last day out to get out of jail. Eng bowled you out for 263, we got 376. You were 161-4 before Clarke and North got you out of trouble. If you think Australia controlled any of that game, I'd question whether you saw it. You lost that series due to massive batting collapses. It is tragic that you cannot accept defeat. Do you think you beat SA last summer? I bet you dismiss the 4-0 ODI drubbing last year as well! Are you one of those whinging Aussies that blamed the 4-0 India thrashing on the pitches? Look mate...just accept it that you lost. Thing that has to worry you a lot is that your batting is so much worse nowadays. Going to be a long tough summer!

  • HatsforBats on May 5, 2013, 0:46 GMT

    Milhouse79, you seem to be one of those English fans who've swallowed their own medias tripe and think the current team is one of the greatest of all time! Australia scored more runs and took more wickets, both at better averages and controlled much of the series. Edgbaston? 2 days lost to rain and the match finished with England taking 5/375 to give Aus a 200+ lead. The blinkers are off mate, Australia didn't deserve to win that series cause they couldn't control key passages of play. England won those key sessions and that decided the series

  • Jaffa79 on May 4, 2013, 16:49 GMT

    HatsforBats...you are clearly demonstrating what we all know and that is that Australians are the worst winners and worst losers in the world. You are probably one of those delusional Aussies who thinks that you didn't lose to SA last Aussie summer. Mate...England just won the odd session? England dominated at Lords, thrashed you at the Oval and Clarke had to bat out the last day at Edgebaston! It was a tight series I agree (much tighter than the thrashing down under) but England were no doubt the better team! All without KP who missed 3 tests and an unfit Flintoff! You need to take off the blinkers off.

  • HatsforBats on May 4, 2013, 7:05 GMT

    @ Milhouse79, "when has a lower order swish ever counted for anything?", apparently when it's Broad or Swann or Bresnan, or even Panesar getting off strike. English fans & commentators bleat ad nauseum about how good their lower order batting is.

  • HatsforBats on May 4, 2013, 6:57 GMT

    @ Milhouse79, revisionist history? Maybe you should go back and watch that series again? Maybe because England won the series you think they were the better team? England won a few very important sessions but Australia controlled the majority of that series. I think the performances in that series back up that view.

  • Jaffa79 on May 3, 2013, 17:42 GMT

    @ Mitty2 Siddle is rated above Jimmy, fair point but rankings aren't always a fair barometre of where things are at: Jimmy (7th), Swann (8th), Broad (14th) and Finn (17th) rank far higher than your boys: Siddle (5th), Hilf (11th), MJ (20th) and Lyon (21st). So can we say we have a better attack than your much vaunted attack that everyone bangs on about so much? I am sure you would disagree! Hilf, MJ won't play and Siddle is not even locked on to start. You do need to stop just quoting ridiculous stats (I did to prove a point!). You guys still rate your attack above SA despite them having the top 2 and 3 out of the top 10. I like that you back your team but seriously stop with the meaningless stats! If you want to depress yourself, look at the batting rankings!!!

  • Jaffa79 on May 3, 2013, 17:18 GMT

    @ Hatsforbats...it is hillarious that Australian revisionist history has to convince itself that it was a 'great escape'. You were mullered at Lords & Oval (as we were at Headingly) but at we had your backs against the wall at Edgebaston, as you did at Cardiff. If you think we escaped, you are kidding yourself. England won it fair and square. @ Mitty... I agree that Jimmy will have to bowl better than in NZ but Hilfenhaus is so off the boil that he is an irrelevence. MJ? What self respecting Aussie fan would mention him? Us English would love to see him melt under the pressure in an Ashes series again. Copeland is a total irrelevance! When has a lower order swish ever counted for anything? Early season conditions in England can be tough up front but get easier. How you draw any conclusions from 2 early season CC games is a mystery! Can I say that Starc should bat in top 3 as he was clearly better than your top3 in Ind? Meaningless! Siddle v Jimmy? You have Peter and I''ll have Jimmy!

  • on May 3, 2013, 12:30 GMT

    Starc's gone a little off the boil and I hope his surgery puts an end to his recent run of average form. Everyone's fear is that Starc will show obvious great talent but be an inconsistent underachiever. Think about another left-arm swing bowler who sends them down at about 145k.

  • Beertjie on May 3, 2013, 11:40 GMT

    Usually I no longer have a favourite player anymore, but if pushed for one now I'd say Starc. Go well, Mitch.

  • HatsforBats on May 3, 2013, 7:00 GMT

    @Milhouse79, yeah Meety beat me to it but he meant the '09 Ashes in England, aka The Great Escape. Anderson took 12@45, not so good. Hilf, Siddle & Johnson took 20+ @ <32. Outbowled I'd say.

  • Meety on May 3, 2013, 0:21 GMT

    @Milhouse79 on (May 2, 2013, 7:25 GMT) - "...Jimmy carved through your batters like butter ..." - the bowlers that won the Ashes for you in 10/11 were Tremlett & Bresnan, NOT Anderson.

    It was YOU who said "...The most accomplished quick in ENGLISH conditions WILL be Anderson..." - to which I quoted you & pointed out that "...he was behind Siddle, Hilfenhaas & MJ last time..." meaning ENGLAND! So there is no guarantees Jimmy will be any more impressive than in the past, AND Jimmy will have to bowl a hell of a lot better than he did against the might of NZ.

    "Stating that Copeland has scored a few runs in the first two games of the season in div 2 is such an irrelevance..." - actually it VERY relevant. It would indicate that conditions whether it be bowling quality or pitch conditions are not as difficult in Oz at present.

    YOU said "... Siddle is a better bowler than Jimmy..." - there YOUR words not mine, but it would be appear the ICC rankings think so, Siddle 5th, Anderson 7th!

  • Matt. on May 2, 2013, 8:11 GMT

    I think Starc need to worry about his accuracy before gaining more pace. One of australia's biggest problems during the last couple of ashes series has been maintaining pressure. I am a Starc fan (especially in the shorter formats), but i think he has a ways to go before he's test match ready. Hopefully the other guys can stay fit enough so that he only gets one or two ashes tests at most. Then again i hope i'm wrong and he blows away england :)

  • Jaffa79 on May 2, 2013, 7:25 GMT

    Stating that Copeland has scored a few runs in the first two games of the season in div 2 is such an irrelevance! A couple of not outs against div 2 opposition does not prove anything I am afraid. Anderson was behind Johnson, Hilfenhaus and Siddle last time? You surely don't mean the last Ashes series do you? Jimmy carved through your batters like butter and your guys got smashed around by all and sundry! I don't understand that one I am afraid! You talk of having this battery of quicks but you do overstimate them mate! If you think Siddle is a better bowler than Jimmy, then that is fine; I know who I'd rather have opening the bowling for me.

  • fazald on May 2, 2013, 2:40 GMT

    It will be nice to see a fully fit aussie bowling line up in the ashes the likes of Starc, Pattinson, Harris and Cummins in full flight in England and Australia. I just can't wait to see that happen sooner than later. Unfortunately they are injury prone and breakdown on the field in no time.

  • SamRoy on May 2, 2013, 2:39 GMT

    He is already very quick when his rhythm is on song. He always bowls 140+ (except for a few late spells in the afternoon in India) and when he is in good rhythm he regularly clocks between 145-149 kmph. He doesn't need more pace, he needs more accuracy and it will be great if he could learn to swing it the other way too (Since Akram's retirement only Chaminda Vaas and Zaheer Khan are the only left arm pacers who could swing it both ways and both learned that craft mid way through their careers. Neither of them was as quick as Starc.)

  • on May 2, 2013, 1:38 GMT

    @ Milhouse79

    First off the bat, England are deserved favourites! They have an excellent settled batting lineup and a good bowling attack. The odds for England winning are currently ~1.5, which translates into a winning chance of 67%. That also means the odds of a drawn series or an Aussie win are 33%. The way that some talk you would think that this is 100 to 1 and a 5-0 is a foregone conclusion! This is backed up by rubbish reasoning, eg: England won in India, Aussies lost, therefore England will win the Ashes! The retort that England was unable to win a single match versus New Zealand is totally dismissed. The recent batting in the Shield is below par but even so having so many bowlers average low 20's is no accident.

    A drawn series would mean Eng retain the Ashes but frankly given the total condescension concerning the state of Aussie cricket and the uphill slog we face I think most of us would be ecstatic with at least a draw away and to go for the win proper at home

  • Amith_S on May 2, 2013, 0:56 GMT

    Great to hear, we need Starc fit and firing

  • Meety on May 1, 2013, 23:51 GMT

    @Milhouse79 on (May 1, 2013, 18:00 GMT) - hmmm "..t.he Aussie quicks have been boosted by the lack of batting talent in Aus. Some of the FC averages of your batsmen this past season have been appalling..." - Bailey averaged 18 in the Shield, he is averaging 38 in County, Copeland (a tailender) is averaging NINETY SEVEN in county cricket! State journeymen in Hogan & Magoffin are ripping threads thru the County scene & they are NOT in our top 15 bowlers. BTW - there is no guarantee that "...The most accomplished quick in English conditions will be Anderson..." - he was behind Siddle, Hilfenhaas & MJ last time, & could easily be behind Starc, Harris, Siddle, Bird & Faulkner by the time the 5th Test is played.

  • bobagorof on May 1, 2013, 23:46 GMT

    What an interesting statement: "Starc has been named in Australia's squads for the Ashes and the Champions Trophy one-day tournament, which begins in early June, and he is expected to be fit by then". I should certainly hope so!! Who would name a player that you expect will not be fit?

  • sitaram58 on May 1, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    whats all this talk about 140 and 145. The IPL is full of bowlers (Sharma, Awana, etc) who are bowling 140 to 150 albeit they are being measured by the IPL speedguns

  • Jaffa79 on May 1, 2013, 18:00 GMT

    @ mitty2...jeez mate, stop going on about your pace attack as if they are better than the Windies of the late 70s and early 80s! Sure, there is some potential but you have to agree that most are injury prone and/or untested! If you picked combined English and Aussie team, even the most ardent Aussie fan would pick Clarke plus English batters, Prior plus two Aussie quicks (prob Pattinson and Starc) and Anderson and Swann. Two each in the bowling stakes wouldn't you say? The most accomplished quick in English conditions will be Anderson as well! As for FC averages, the Aussie quicks have been boosted by the lack of batting talent in Aus. Some of the FC averages of your batsmen this past season have been appalling! Harris, Pattinson and Starc are all currently out whilst Bird has only played 2 Tests aganst SL, Faulkner hasn't played a Test whilst Siddle was a part of the 2011/12 whipping. I fancy our bats against your quicks way more than your batters against our attack!

  • Ozcricketwriter on May 1, 2013, 16:33 GMT

    I love seeing Starc and Johnson bowl together, and I am sure that against England in the Ashes they would be scary. Fingers crossed that they bring Johnson in for Harris and we get to see this nightmare come to life for England. I think that Starc alone will do very well in English conditions though, which should suit him perfectly.

  • Mitty2 on May 1, 2013, 13:12 GMT

    It would be interesting to see who @kitscchinguy supports... If bowling 140+ makes you a trundler than would nation could he possibly support. If by that logic, what is Dale steyn - who hasn't bowled over 140 for over a year?

    The 'limited attack' reference was quite humorous, still not as good as some of FFL's works, but good nonetheless. I think it was fifteen quicks averaging under 25 this year? With England lacking quicks with comparable FC and test records/averages to ours, and with England recently having their attack being labelled 'number one' and anderson and swann being compared to warne and mgcrath (still can't get over that one)... I wonder what that makes our attack? Please respond when England get a quick to average under 30 - oh and when another country has more than fifteen able quicks who could easily step in for a and warrant a test spot, but unfortunately that concept only works for Australia.. Sorry.

  • nthuq on May 1, 2013, 13:07 GMT

    @Kitschiguy, Starc consistently hit the low 140s before the operation, hard to call him a trundler. Nor is this an 'injury that he has picked up' as I understand it, but rather something he's suffered from throughout his career. Good call getting him fixed up. Mitchell Starc bowling 150km/hr inswinging yorkers will be a lovely sight for the Australian cricket fan!

  • Mitty2 on May 1, 2013, 12:59 GMT

    @Aaron bakota.. He didn't breakdown for over 18 months with not a single bowler - for him to be so durable at such a young age is very good.

    He was bowling 145-150 on average against SL and WI in the ODI series', but was bowling 140 (a bit less) against SL in the tests but a bit more in Perth, in the Indian heat, his pace wasn't that bad, but his varying length (and the selectively watered pitches) was the issue,. Once he stops floating it up - which could be effective in England, just not in Australia - he will become world class. His main issue is his length, and as he is more effective with the older ball in tests and can swing it both ways, he still has a lot of improvement to go, which is a very good sign.

    He is already better than MJ: more bounce, more accurate and more swing at the same pace, but, as a reflection of our brimming pace depth/quality, he is not in my best attack. IMO, in England it's: patto, bird, Sayers and SOK, but from the squad: Harris, patto, bird and Lyon.

  • Kitschiguy on May 1, 2013, 12:45 GMT

    Despite being a bit of a trundler, Starc still manages to pick up serious injuries. Much like Cummins and Patt...? whatever his name is.

    If Cricket Australia had more expertise among their management and coaching staff their limited and fragile bowling attack would have more chance of avoiding injury.

  • RandyOZ on May 1, 2013, 12:18 GMT

    Probably in the top 3 fastest bowlers on earth, along with Cummins and Patto!

  • on May 1, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    As long as he doesn't break down, it is all well and good

  • goldeneraaus on May 1, 2013, 12:11 GMT

    Starc with more pace? foolish optimism or not that IS a scary thought!!

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • goldeneraaus on May 1, 2013, 12:11 GMT

    Starc with more pace? foolish optimism or not that IS a scary thought!!

  • on May 1, 2013, 12:13 GMT

    As long as he doesn't break down, it is all well and good

  • RandyOZ on May 1, 2013, 12:18 GMT

    Probably in the top 3 fastest bowlers on earth, along with Cummins and Patto!

  • Kitschiguy on May 1, 2013, 12:45 GMT

    Despite being a bit of a trundler, Starc still manages to pick up serious injuries. Much like Cummins and Patt...? whatever his name is.

    If Cricket Australia had more expertise among their management and coaching staff their limited and fragile bowling attack would have more chance of avoiding injury.

  • Mitty2 on May 1, 2013, 12:59 GMT

    @Aaron bakota.. He didn't breakdown for over 18 months with not a single bowler - for him to be so durable at such a young age is very good.

    He was bowling 145-150 on average against SL and WI in the ODI series', but was bowling 140 (a bit less) against SL in the tests but a bit more in Perth, in the Indian heat, his pace wasn't that bad, but his varying length (and the selectively watered pitches) was the issue,. Once he stops floating it up - which could be effective in England, just not in Australia - he will become world class. His main issue is his length, and as he is more effective with the older ball in tests and can swing it both ways, he still has a lot of improvement to go, which is a very good sign.

    He is already better than MJ: more bounce, more accurate and more swing at the same pace, but, as a reflection of our brimming pace depth/quality, he is not in my best attack. IMO, in England it's: patto, bird, Sayers and SOK, but from the squad: Harris, patto, bird and Lyon.

  • nthuq on May 1, 2013, 13:07 GMT

    @Kitschiguy, Starc consistently hit the low 140s before the operation, hard to call him a trundler. Nor is this an 'injury that he has picked up' as I understand it, but rather something he's suffered from throughout his career. Good call getting him fixed up. Mitchell Starc bowling 150km/hr inswinging yorkers will be a lovely sight for the Australian cricket fan!

  • Mitty2 on May 1, 2013, 13:12 GMT

    It would be interesting to see who @kitscchinguy supports... If bowling 140+ makes you a trundler than would nation could he possibly support. If by that logic, what is Dale steyn - who hasn't bowled over 140 for over a year?

    The 'limited attack' reference was quite humorous, still not as good as some of FFL's works, but good nonetheless. I think it was fifteen quicks averaging under 25 this year? With England lacking quicks with comparable FC and test records/averages to ours, and with England recently having their attack being labelled 'number one' and anderson and swann being compared to warne and mgcrath (still can't get over that one)... I wonder what that makes our attack? Please respond when England get a quick to average under 30 - oh and when another country has more than fifteen able quicks who could easily step in for a and warrant a test spot, but unfortunately that concept only works for Australia.. Sorry.

  • Ozcricketwriter on May 1, 2013, 16:33 GMT

    I love seeing Starc and Johnson bowl together, and I am sure that against England in the Ashes they would be scary. Fingers crossed that they bring Johnson in for Harris and we get to see this nightmare come to life for England. I think that Starc alone will do very well in English conditions though, which should suit him perfectly.

  • Jaffa79 on May 1, 2013, 18:00 GMT

    @ mitty2...jeez mate, stop going on about your pace attack as if they are better than the Windies of the late 70s and early 80s! Sure, there is some potential but you have to agree that most are injury prone and/or untested! If you picked combined English and Aussie team, even the most ardent Aussie fan would pick Clarke plus English batters, Prior plus two Aussie quicks (prob Pattinson and Starc) and Anderson and Swann. Two each in the bowling stakes wouldn't you say? The most accomplished quick in English conditions will be Anderson as well! As for FC averages, the Aussie quicks have been boosted by the lack of batting talent in Aus. Some of the FC averages of your batsmen this past season have been appalling! Harris, Pattinson and Starc are all currently out whilst Bird has only played 2 Tests aganst SL, Faulkner hasn't played a Test whilst Siddle was a part of the 2011/12 whipping. I fancy our bats against your quicks way more than your batters against our attack!

  • sitaram58 on May 1, 2013, 20:51 GMT

    whats all this talk about 140 and 145. The IPL is full of bowlers (Sharma, Awana, etc) who are bowling 140 to 150 albeit they are being measured by the IPL speedguns