Cricket
‘We’ve seen Jimmy Anderson’ Josh Hazlewood talks about prioritising Test cricket ahead of AUS vs WI series

‘We’ve seen Jimmy Anderson’ Josh Hazlewood talks about prioritising Test cricket ahead of AUS vs WI series

Ahead of flying to the Caribbean for the Test series, Hazlewood said it would be surreal if the Australian quartet of him, Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins, and Nathan Lyon could all achieve 300 wickets and provided the example of England's James Anderson.

Australian fast bowler Josh Hazlewood has spoken out about the importance of Test cricket. Hazlewood is just one shy of 250 Test wickets and is expected to achieve the milestone in the AUS vs WI 1st Test. Ahead of flying to the Caribbean for the Test series, Hazlewood said it would be surreal if the Australian quartet of him, Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins, and Nathan Lyon could all achieve 300 wickets and provided the example of England’s James Anderson.

Among the four Aussie bowlers, both Lyon and Starc have over 300 wickets while Cummins is on 258. Hazlewood said in an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald that he hoped all four bowlers would continue to play Test cricket for the next two years or more.

Josh Hazlewood redeemed himself with 4/9 after Australia collapsed with 10/5 runs but Aussie pacer redeemed himself in AUS vs PAK 3rd Test.

“We’ve seen Jimmy Anderson do that sort of stuff. Starcy bowls a little bit differently to Patty and me. He’s all guns blazing most of the time, but if we could all get 300 [wickets], that’d be unreal. It’d be great if we could play forever, but if we could play a couple more years … what we know about training and workload management now we might be able to hand on longer. I just really enjoy the format and I know the other boys do as well. You try to hang onto Test cricket as long as possible,” said Hazlewood.

Follow
Share

Editors pick

India’s T20 World Cup squad announcement LIVE updates: Tough task in hand for Agarkar and co
Share article
Follow us on social media
Google News Whatsapp channel
Tell us why didn’t you like our article so that we can improve on?