Australian Test Selection 2016/2017

[Dan]

nah, that Marsh's spot at 6

 

[burr]

So the " This is a one off" line by the selectors in Sri Lanka wasn't a one off for Burns.

It is a glaring sign that the team is in trouble when the selectors pick players to do two jobs instead of picking the best available player for the main job.

Pick batsmen to make runs, pick bowlers to take wickets.

( Australia in the 80s, England in the 90's are examples of this )

Yeah, that's what gets me. If you want to pick him to reward him for a good Shield season I've got absolutely no issues. But don't hide behind some better batsman bs. He's a bowler. It just proves how fragile the middle order is. Never thought I'd miss Brad Haddin.

 

[the big bambino]

Nevill's entry positions during the last summer:

vs New Zealand, Brisbane: DNB, DNB
vs New Zealand, Perth: 5/512, 5/294
vs New Zealand, Adelaide: 5/80, 5/161 (scores 66 in the first dig, not many in the second)
vs West Indies, Hobart: DNB, -
vs West Indies, Melbourne: DNB, DNB
vs West Indies, Sydney: 2/154, -
vs New Zealand, Wellington: 5/299 (makes 30-odd in partnership with a rampaging Voges)
vs New Zealand, Christchurch: 6/464, DNB


Let's, uhh, give him a chance to make some runs first before binning him. Hard to make 'em when you never get to leave the pavilion. I get that he's been sub-par overseas, if not outright bad to date, but at this stage we've got literally no clue how he can do in typical home conditions. He struggled no worse than Khawaja or Burns in SL but doesn't have the nice career average to fall back on because, y'know, the top five spent the entire last summer refusing to let anyone else have a go until the time came for declaration batting.

So in situations where his batting was actually kinda important, he played the innings of the Adelaide Test, failed in the second dig, and didn't convert a start in a ~100 run stand with Voges. Those eight Tests constitute over half of his career, and he batted in a grand total of three meaningful situations across them.

Yeah, his overseas batting hasn't been up to scratch, but when he's also the best gloveman in the team, give him the damn summer.

He's had only 3 fewer test innings than Wade.
His average is 14 short of Wade's.
His away ave is 11 short of Wade's.
Wade has a test hundred v SL. I know ... home versus away. But it was at Sydney, Herath took 7 in the game so while Nevill had the harder gig Wade's comparative effort can't be discounted.
Wade has 2 test hundreds already.

Look I'm not starting a guerilla war until they pick Wade. Burr has a point though. On a similar no. of innings Wade was more than useful. Nevill disappointing. Nevill falls below the Healy average of 27 which is probably what you want from your keeper. So if you are determining specialist positions on what candidates can do with their off suit then you can make a good case for Wade, take the pressure off your bowling selections and pick Bird. In fact I think its more justifiable to consider batting ability when deciding a keeper than it is a bowler. After all most keepers are expected to bat at seven and return a 25-35 average. When you get 9 or lower I'm thinking you should bias for the better specialist. If Mennie played he'd bat at 9, 10 or jack. Does a fc ave of 18 instead of 9 really throw enough on the scales to prefer him over Bird? Personally not for me.

Still I'm ambivalent bcos Nevill is thought a better keeper and normally I'd trust his batting will improve. But I believe he's made a few Wade like mistakes and that undermines his spot imo. I still picked Nevill but his name is in flickering light. Burr's criticism is fair even if you would not change your selection bcos of it.

 

[morgieb]

Marsh will come good but I don't think it'll be this stint in the side. His knocks in SL don't tell the story of how well he batted, was the only guy to make the spinners look ordinary. One of those who can knock the wind out of your sails, match-winner (eventually).

Did MMarsh not hit a ridiculous ton on the tour of England?

Reckon he's where Smith was 5 years ago. He's obviously going to be a big part of the Australian side going forward but he really needs a full season of Shield cricket first.

See also: Maxwell, Glenn.

Nah, at least not in Tests.

I do agree with your overarching point overall though. He reminds me a bit of the Steve Waugh in the 80's, in that he's clearly a talent with both bat and ball but not quite there yet. There's something there, definitely, but I think he should spend a season batting Top 4 at Shield level. Hopefully then he'll be ready to flourish.

Trouble is, he's nearly 25. By then Waugh had that stupidly good Ashes series, and Smith was clearly blossoming.

 

[NUFAN]

That 66 from Nev in Adelaide was a terrific knock and I felt that it could have been the knock where he starts to feel comfortable and translates his Shield form into the Test arena. It wasn't to be though as he has been very disappointing with the bat ever since.

Realistically, as has been mentioned before, it is Mitch Marsh who is making Nev's lack of runs look worse. I concur will the people who want the 6 best batsman, best keeper, best 3 quicks and best spinner selected.

 

[adub]

MMarsh must be feeling the pinch when even cricket.com.au are running a story talking him up as a potential no.8 third seamer. A different role for allrounder Marsh? | cricket.com.au

We've got a lot of injured bowlers atm, but even with that I'd struggle to see Marsh as a genuine first change bowler. About the only qualification he has for the spot is his 24 batting average. #menniecriteria

 

[Julian87]

He's had only 3 fewer test innings than Wade.
His average is 14 short of Wade's.
His away ave is 11 short of Wade's.
Wade has a test hundred v SL. I know ... home versus away. But it was at Sydney, Herath took 7 in the game so while Nevill had the harder gig Wade's comparative effort can't be discounted.
Wade has 2 test hundreds already.
.

The gap in the batting is just not even in the same stratosphere as the gap between the keeping. And if we're being honest you just can't get by with a keeper as substandard up to the stumps as Matthew Wade. Their FC record suggests they're on par as batsmen and I wouldn't put that much weight behind their respective test records with the bat considering Wade's number 6 was Michael Hussey while Nevill's is Mitch ****ing Marsh.

 

[Red]

If we're gonna drop Nevill for Wade, we might as well drop Lyon and just play seamers.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The gap in the batting is just not even in the same stratosphere as the gap between the keeping. And if we're being honest you just can't get by with a keeper as substandard up to the stumps as Matthew Wade. Their FC record suggests they're on par as batsmen and I wouldn't put that much weight behind their respective test records with the bat considering Wade's number 6 was Michael Hussey while Nevill's is Mitch ****ing Marsh.

This is such a misrepresentation of their comparative keeping skills. It's amazing how easily people's opinions get shaped by those around them and the media. Every time Wade ****s something up more people notice because he's already got the stigma. It's a perfect example of confirmation bias. Is Nevill a better keeper than Wade? Probably, in fact almost certainly. But it's no where near by as much as people keep saying. Nevill's made quite a few mistakes over the last 12 months, missed several stumpings etc.

btw Wade was actually his own no.6 when he made one of his test 100s (they played 5 bowlers IIRC), and Hussey retired after that game as well.

 

[the big bambino]

Yeah Nev's a better gloveman but if you can make an argument that his batting will improve you can say the same for Wade's keeping. I've not accounted for their respective No.6's bcos I don't think its relevant.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Anyway I'm not saying Wade would be a better option, but I'm starting to question whether Nevill is as good as I thought he was just over a year ago. I was of the opinion that he was some perfect keeper and his batting if anything was better than Wade's in the Shield. I was calling for Nevill to replace Haddin/Wade as early back as 2013 iirc. But he's just not really been performing as well with the bat, even in domestic cricket, since his selection in 2015.

Just saying that there's definitely room for debate and I wouldn't blame people or the selectors at all for opting for Wade as a replacement if Nevill struggles this summer.

 

[Burgey]

This is such a misrepresentation of their comparative keeping skills. It's amazing how easily people's opinions get shaped by those around them and the media. Every time Wade ****s something up more people notice because he's already got the stigma. It's a perfect example of confirmation bias. Is Nevill a better keeper than Wade? Probably, in fact almost certainly. But it's no where near by as much as people keep saying. Nevill's made quite a few mistakes over the last 12 months, missed several stumpings etc.

btw Wade was actually his own no.6 when he made one of his test 100s (they played 5 bowlers IIRC), and Hussey retired after that game as well.

Wade making that ton caused Hussey to retire

 

[Shady Slim]

realistically on the ****in roads we dish up we should be able to pick a "specialist keeper" anyways

 

[Julian87]

It's amazing how easily people's opinions get shaped by those around them and the media.

James Sherry to confirm.

 

[Red]

Surely Marsh comes into question now. 0 wickets and 0 runs. Only bowled 6 overs out of 64 in the first innings.

He might take a bag today or make 50 to save us in the second dig, but I think his time has come now.

Time to play a batsman at number 6?

 

[Burgey]

Burns
Warner
Khawaja (on notice)
Smith
Darsh
K Pat
Nevill (on notice)
Starc
Siddle
Lyon
Haze

If not Paterson then they need to start leaning towards blokes with a medium-long term future. Khawaja needs to bring it soon, and Darsh can't afford the inconsistency he's shown in the past.

 

[Red]

Yeh Kurt Patterson looks the goods and seems a good fit at 6.

 

[Red]

Think we should give a batsman a solid run at 6 before getting rid of Nevill (if it's just based on runs)

 

[Dan]

A fifth bowler is a necessity tbh, especially with so many of our depth specialists injured.

 

[Red]

A fifth bowler is a necessity tbh, especially with so many of our depth specialists injured.

Disagree strongly. It's costing us big time at the moment. If a bowler gets injured mid test, so be it. Our battings too fragile to cater to what ifs.

Smith, Voges and Warner can all chuck a few down.