3 reasons why Mitchell Starc retiring from T20Is is the wrong move

Australia veteran seamer Mitchell Starc dropped a massive bombshell by announcing his retirement from T20I cricket. The left-arm bowler last played in the format for the Men in Yellow during the 2024 T20 World Cup, and as a result will not be featuring in the upcoming short format assignments against New Zealand and India.

Starc played in 65 T20Is since his debut in 2012, and picked up 79 wickets at an average of 23.86, with an economy rate of 7.76. He was part of the side that won the 2021 T20 World Cup under Aaron Finch, and is the leading wicket-taker among pacers for Australia in the format.

"Looking ahead to an away Indian Test tour, the Ashes and an ODI World Cup in 2027, I feel this is my best way forward to remain fresh, fit and at my best for those campaigns. It also gives the bowling group time to prepare for the T20 World Cup in the matches leading into that tournament," Starc said via ESPN Cricinfo.

On that note, let us take a look at three reasons why Mitchell Starc retiring from T20Is is the wrong move.

#1 Australia do not have the bench strength to trigger a transition

Australia have been able to make the most out of the trio of Mitchell Starc, Pat Cummins, and Josh Hazlewood, somehow defying age and workload. While it is arguable that the shortest format is where their influence and skillset suited the least, compared to other formats, that does not suggest they were past their expiry date by any means.

With the 2026 T20 World Cup in sight, Australia needed their experienced trio to step up for one last dance, perhaps. While their performance in the 2024 T20 World Cup was ordinary, it was evident they had the ability to succeed at the highest international level.

From Australia's perspective, they are in a dilemma over Starc's unavailability from now on, largely due to a steep drop in terms of quality when it comes to his replacement. Pat Cummins and Josh Hazlewood are expected to retain their spots as the primary pacers, but beyond that, there is concern.

With all-rounders like Mitchell Marsh, Cameron Green, and Marcus Stoinis, largely out of the bowling scheme of things due to injuries and lack of prowess, Australia need a strong third pacer to hold the attack together. On paper, names like Ben Dwarshius, Spencer Johnson, and Nathan Ellis, make it appear a seamless transition is on the horizon. The list goes on with Xavier Bartlett, Sean Abbott, and Riley Meredith, but with all such options, the skillset may be there or not be there, but the inexperience, especially in crunch high-profile games is glaring.

The 2025 Champions Trophy was a major indicator as to why the upcoming crop of bowlers are still not quite ready to be part of the attack on a full-time basis. A different format, but the same principle.

#2 Australia needed Mitchell Starc's skillset and big-match ability to mount a serious case for 2026 T20 World Cup

Since their forgettable campaign in the 2024 World Cup, Australia have turned a corner as far as their T20 game is concerned. They have just lost two out of 16 contests, which includes series wins over South Africa, West Indies, and Pakistan.

While Starc was not part of any of these matches, his absence was felt at times. In the eigh matches Australia have played in 2025, they have conceded over 180 runs in half of them. The batting unit, led by Marsh's promotion to the top, and individual brilliance from Glenn Maxwell and Tim David, have had to pull their weight to maintain the solid record and negate the poor bowling at times.

As someone who is impactful across all phases of the innings, Australia could have used a bowler like Starc during the build-up to the tournament, and the event itself, despite not being part of the T20I side for a while. Capable and a proven match-winner, the left-arm pacer could have been the man for the moments for Australia, taking the pressure off the rest.

Granted Australia now have the time to potentially groom the candidate who they think is the ideal fit to complement Cummins and Hazlewood, they would much rather have had Starc in the first place.

#3 A redundant move from workload perspective as he will continue to feature in T20 Cricket

Starc's decision to retire from T20Is hardly comes across as a win-win situation for anybody. Australia have been smart with workload for years, evident by the pace trio's longevity. The fact that Starc has not played a T20I since June 2024 suggests that he has not had to exert himself while focusing on Tests and ODI cricket.

There is no reason why his workload could not have been managed in the twilight years of his career, especially until the 2026 T20 World Cup.

Starc played an average of six T20Is per year, and he has played over 10 T20Is an year only twice in his career. So, to retire from that branch citing workload issues and longevity, and then possibly going onto play 14 matches and beyond in the Indian Premier League (IPL) in the span of two months, and additional T20 cricket, does not quite add up.