Does anyone think Australia's situation is not actually that dire?

[Uppercut]

Bairstow is no better than any of the young Australian batsmen

You know I still don't really see the point of Hughes. I'm starting to think he should have stuck with his original, highly unorthodox technique and just found a way to stop the short ball getting him out. It's not usually an impossible weakness to manage and his efforts to become more textbook just don't look like coming off. Sometimes he plays a defensive prod and his feet and elbows go all over the place. Someone in the tour thread said it looked like he was performing a long-lost martial art.

I don't think Bairstow's as good as the others though.

 

[Furball]

It was a much easier era for batting, though. Cook and Bell were criticised constantly for years, I doubt there's anyone on the site who didn't call for them to be dropped at least once. Prior started off as a bad joke of a wicket keeper, Anderson was very bad a lot more often than he was very good, Broad was a clear weak link and hate figure, Swann was a county-standard tweaker that everyone in the team hated, Bresnan was a fat bits and pieces dobbler. Only Trott and KP looked the goods from the start and KP has his own tiresome back story while Trott has regressed quite a lot in the past couple of years.

The point is, you have to start somewhere and every team goes through transitional periods. This is a particularly painful one for Australia but it's never quite as bad as it looks after a heavy defeat.

Swann had a much better start to his career than that.

 

[Uppercut]

Swann had a much better start to his career than that.

I'm talking about when he came into the setup in 2000 and everyone hated him and thought he was ****e. Don't think he played a test but whatever.

 

[NUFAN]

Haha, Flib, knew I shouldn't have added Kenya into the mix. Not going to continue though, because UK really are doing great in the sporting world.

Nice post Justo, what do you make of Burns county cricket form? I do really enjoy the way he plays his cricket, he's quite a natural player who kind of reminds me of Clarke early days. Bailey and Voges do seem to be branded together of late, they are quite similar I agree, and wish one of them was added to the squad when Warner was suspended. Bailey is still 30 so he would still have the opportunity to play quite a long career and offer leadership if given the opportunity - wish he didn't suck so much last Shield campaign though (Voges was almost as bad).

Its pretty much impossible to mount an irresistible case for any batsman away from the squad at the moment, due to their inconsistency.

 

[morgieb]

Let's be honest here, there is still light ahead of the tunnel IMO.

Watson - should be moved back down the order, I mean he's not an opener originally unlike Rogers and Hughes. Probably can still have a role in the side as at least he can bowl and can make starts, but he's clearly done little with the bat since the 2010/11 Ashes.

Rogers - an interesting case. Old, but has dominated domestic cricket in the past. Looks sometimes solid but has had a knack of getting out to poor deliveries. A series by series basis, if he fails here then move towards someone else.

Khawaja - deserves to be the #3, he needs a fair go at Test cricket to see whether he sinks or swim.

Hughes - should open, it's what he's done for most of his career. Otherwise, give him at #6 a go. If he struggles there, then discard him.

Clarke - obviously keep. Only batsman who's worth his weight in piss. Will be mighty annoyed if he retires.

Smith - shows balls at least. Keep him in the side, plus he can occasionally bowl well.

Warner - isn't even scoring runs for Australia A. Needs some big scores to get back in the side, but has more natural talent than most which I suppose is a good start.

Cowan - he's 31, never dominated Shield cricket and has been mediocre. I know he's a decent, intelligent bloke, but he really isn't test match material. Would never had gotten anywhere in stronger times.

I think that Top 6 should remain our top 6 for the near future, with Warner coming in for Rogers sometime within the next 12 months or if some of our other batsmen still can't hack test cricket. Many of these guys are young, done well at Shield level, and some of them show fight, so our batting stocks could be worse. Things should go up within time.

We have other problems, but none nearly as concerning as our batting.

 

[Ruckus]

The best way forward for the team is to just stick with a select group of 'high potential' young players and hope that test cricket over time can harden the players up mentally. The problem with going through the usual 'dropping/replacing' routine is that a: atm there just aren't any significantly better alternatives* and b: the state of shield cricket seems inadequate in improving the players who are dropped (for batsmen at least), thereby wasting valuable time in their development.

The main problem with the above though, is the idea that if these players are persisted with and no selection pressure is on them, it could encourage even more mediocrity in the longer term. They will need a good coach to make sure laziness and poor standards shouldn't be tolerated. I think Lehmann can do that though...so far it looks like he has a tough love approach.

*the only options are either too old like Katich, and would be a pointless stop-gap solution staving off the inevitable imo, or ones who are probably not likely to do much better than the younger players anyway, and are without age/potential on their side e.g. the Cowan's, Marsh's and Quiney's.

 

[Maximas]

It's pretty dire right now, our batsmen always look like getting out, while the English boys look like they could dominate at any point. While all our batsmen have played well at some point in the two tests bar Cowan, it's always a lone battle. We need more consistency, and we need it now, Doolan might be the guy, Burns needs a SS season or 2 more, Cowan should be gone forever and Hughes/Khawaja/Smith should be persisted with.

 

[Ruckus]

Considering Smith, Khawaja and Hughes all average >40 in shield, I think there should have to be some pretty damn good reasons before selecting players like Doolan and Burns at this stage.

 

[NUFAN]

Considering Smith, Khawaja and Hughes all average >40 in shield, I think there should have to be some pretty damn good reasons before selecting players like Doolan and Burns at this stage.

Burns averages above 40 in his Shield career too. Doolan is on the improve and had a great last season and has performed decently for Australia A whenever given a chance. I think it would be dangerous to continue selecting under performing Test Cricketers because they have better Sheffield Shield career averages.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

If the situation isn't dire now then what would it be if England win 5-0 and Australia drop to 6th in the rankings?

 

[Ruckus]

Burns still hasn't played that many matches though. Needs another season at least. That wasn't my point at all re the averages - what I meant was given those players all have performed better in shield over longer periods and they still have fared poorly in tests, we should be careful when selecting players who haven't even done as well in domestic stuff. Especially seeing as though domestic cricket in aus is a bit of a ****ty competition as it stands. Smith, Khawaja and Hughes should be persevered with simply because they are the players with the highest potential atm imo.

And Warner, of course.

 

[marc71178]

Considering Smith, Khawaja and Hughes all average >40 in shield, I think there should have to be some pretty damn good reasons before selecting players like Doolan and Burns at this stage.

What, like their Test records?

 

[morgieb]

Doolan really shouldn't be picked at this stage. He's had half a good season so far.

Burns could be more interesting though. How well has he done in county cricket?

 

[Spikey]

Ashes: Dean Jones calls on greats

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 5 more months of these articles

 

[NUFAN]

Burns still hasn't played that many matches though. Needs another season at least. That wasn't my point at all re the averages - what I meant was given those players all have performed better in shield over longer periods and they still have fared poorly in tests, we should be careful when selecting players who haven't even done as well in domestic stuff. Especially seeing as though domestic cricket in aus is a bit of a ****ty competition as it stands. Smith, Khawaja and Hughes should be persevered with simply because they are the players with the highest potential atm imo.

And Warner, of course.

Nah, I think its still slightly flawed to look at overall Shield averages when the current players don't perform in Tests as there is always going to be some players who can handle Test Cricket easier compared to others despite averaging a little less in Shield Cricket. Starting your Shield career slowly and improving and playing half your games on a bowler friendly pitch are just 2 reasons.

I'm not condoning Burns selection (Doolan is a different story) but the standard of bowling in Shield Cricket is strong enough and he meet the criteria that you first set out of averaging 40 in Shield.

Doolan really shouldn't be picked at this stage. He's had half a good season so far.

Burns could be more interesting though. How well has he done in county cricket?

Not very well. 214 runs @ 30.57 with a highest score of 77 his only half century in Div 2.

 

[social]

People also need to be mindful that not all players take to test cricket immediately and some of Australia's greatest cricketers were, at best, mediocre for an extended period before finding their feet in test cricket (e.g. Steve Waugh averaged 35 with the bat after 20 tests whilst Richie Benaud averaged 15 with the bat and 37 with the ball after 15)

IMO patience is required with Smith and Khawaja and especially as there are no stand-out alternatives at present

Hughes may be seen in a different light as he has already played 26 tests and will need to show something sooner rather than later

 

[morgieb]

Nah, I think its still slightly flawed to look at overall Shield averages when the current players don't perform in Tests as there is always going to be some players who can handle Test Cricket easier compared to others despite averaging a little less in Shield Cricket. Starting your Shield career slowly and improving and playing half your games on a bowler friendly pitch are just 2 reasons.

I'm not condoning Burns selection (Doolan is a different story) but the standard of bowling in Shield Cricket is strong enough and he meet the criteria that you first set out of averaging 40 in Shield.



Not very well. 214 runs @ 30.57 with a highest score of 77 his only half century in Div 2.

Hmm that doesn't seem good at all. No real evidence that either would be better options than the Khawaja/Hughes/Smith triumvirate.

 

[Ruckus]

What, like their Test records?

We can't just keep tossing players out for potentially even worse alternatives simply because they haven't been performing as well as we would have liked. The time for the ridiculous rebuilding after rebuilding after rebuilding of the team has finished. We just have to accept there aren't any alternatives that are likely to be much better, and stick with the ones who have the most potential (which most would agree are the ones that have played in the series so far). And hopefully, in time, test cricket will make them into something better.

 

[Daemon]

Ashes: Dean Jones calls on greats

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu 5 more months of these articles

Why do people think great players = great coaches?

 

[Furball]

Has Michael Hussey chucked First Class cricket?

Ponting's retirement will hurt Shield cricket because he'd have been brilliant for young batsmen to look up to and learn from.